Hi Vernon, you wrote on 6/3/02 2:06:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time:
> Hi Christopher,
>
> Please excuse the delay in my responding to your last post.
>
> Despite your assurances re the cast-iron nature of the evidence for
> evolution,
> those of us who accept the Bible as a unique body of revealed truth find it
> impossible to believe for the simple reason that the alleged process is
> completely
> at odds with the direct teaching of the Incarnated Creator, Jesus Christ.
> For
> example, how do you square "...Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all
thy
> heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind...and...Thou shalt
love
> thy
> neighbour as thyself." (Mt.22:37-39) with the principle 'dog eat dog'? Why
> would
> our Lord - the personification of love - choose to use such a process,
> declare it
> complete, and then pronounce it all to be 'very good'? It is surely an
> affront to
> common sense and to the intelligence of every Bible-believer to equate '
> creation'
> with 'evolution'.
What you say has absolutely nothing at all to do with the age of the earth or
the universe. I don't know how many times I have to say to YECs that the age
of the universe has nothing to do with evolution. True, evolution would not
be possible in a YEC 6000 year old universe, but the ages of the earth and
various astronomical bodies are determined from empirical observations, not
by making any assumptions of evolution. How could the fact that some star is
determined to be say 10 billion years old have anything to do with evolution
on the earth?
> It is helpful in this context that we remind ourselves of the Apostle
Paul's
> summary of the Lord's role in creation: "For by him (Jesus) were all things
> created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,
> whether
> they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things
were
> created by him, and for him:..." (Col.1:16).
The Apostle Paul may have been a brilliant guy, and I'm sure he was more
clever than many YECs today, but he didn't have the benefit of modern
knowledge and the Hubble Space Telescope.
> The fact that God's imaginative (Gen.8:21) enemies (eg Ps.2) should come
up
> with a
> story of origins that is the antithesis of His revealed truth - and
> threatens to
> destroy it in the minds of men and women (undoubtedly, its true purpose!)
-
> is
> really hardly surprising.
People came up with the theory of evolution and the great ages of the earth
and the universe through empirical observations, not in rebellion against
God, or anything like that. You may know that most of the geologists who
concluded through empirical observations that the earth was substantially
more than 6000 years old and there was no global Noah's flood were Christians
in the early 1800s. That is about 200 years ago, yet you are still living in
the 1700s - how incredible! As Christians, they, and us now, search for the
truth!
> The fact that that those who 'sell' the story to a gullible public also
> pretend it
> is based on a rigorous application of scientific principles should, again,
> evince
> no surprise.
The public is indeed gullible, unfortunately, but it is the YEC
pseudo-scientists who sell their "science" by hijacking Christianity and drag
Christ through the mud. Not only is this very bad science, it does an
excellent job in undermining Christianity by making it look absurd and
unbelievable. What next are going trying to sell, geocentricism, or are you
going to rewrite all books on insects based on Lev. 11:23, if taken
literally? The Bible is not a science book, and was never intended to be one.
> The fact that scientists dismiss the possibility of supernatural
> intervention in
> their observations and deductions - despite clear biblical evidence that
no
> one
> can consider himself immune to such interaction (eg 1Sam.19:9-10, Job
1:6-12;
>
> 2:1-6, 1Ki.22) - is also hardly surprising. But the fiction continues -
> even
> among Christians.
Many scientists are Christians, some are Jews and even a few are Moslems,
Hindus and other religions, but science is not defined as incorporating
supernaturalism. Tell me, where say in astronomy do you draw the line
between invoking supernatural explanations and regular natural explanations
for some phenomena? Do want to explain the motion of the planets by angels
pushing them around, or a dragon eating the sun during an eclipse. You can
always invoke a supernatural explanation to explain anything you like which
you don't currently understand, thus you explain nothing at all and make no
progress in learning. So much worse when some phenomenon is understood but a
YEC wants to replace it with his ignorance under the guise of false piety and
teach it as "science" in public schools.
> The fact that belief in the Theory of Evolution should so clearly
> incorporate an
> _imperative_ should also raise the suspicions of the Christian thinker.
Why
> is it
> that people get so hot under the collar when discussing this particular
> matter?
> What is so repugnant about the YEC position ('ignorant anti-evolutionists'
> in the
> minds of some!)? There can be little doubt that if people like Richard
> Dawkins had
> their way, we'd all be committed to an asylum! Again, why is there such
> resistance
> (even among Christians) to the call for a genuine debate about origins in
> our
> schools and colleges? Could there, perhaps, be a spiritual dimension to
> these
> matters? As Christians, we should surely be aware of the possibility -
> particularly when we read of Darwin's agnosticism and Wallace's leanings to
> spiritualism following the publication of 'The Origin...'.
Whatever beliefs Darwin, Dawkins or anybody else has does not alter the
theory of evolution. Again, this has nothing to do with the age of the
universe. Incidentally, evolution is not some sort of a religious belief, it
is science, as opposed to evolutionism, which is a belief which I don't
subscribe to.
> Christopher, in your closing paragraph you appear to equate YEC with
> anti-intellectualism. I believe the observations I have already made
> demonstrate
> this to be incorrect. If you accept the Judaeo-Christian Scriptures to be
> 'revealed truth', then the misunderstandings must lie on your side of the
> fence;
> if you don't, then I would be interested to know precisely where you
stand
> as a
> Christian.
Well, I believe in the divinity of Christ and His powers of salvation, but I
don't regard the Bible as some sort of a magic science book that has to be
put on a pedestal and worshipped.
> By the way, concerning your contention that the 'mabbul' was 'local': are
> you not
> ignoring the powerful language of
> the narrative, the NT evidence, and simple _common sense_. With 100 years
at
> his
> disposal, Noah could easily
> have walked his family and himself - along with the animals - to safety!
It
> would
> appear that you deny the Scriptures
> and ignore the obvious simply because of 'evolutionary pressures'.
The Bible says the flood was world wide, it does not say it was global.
Today both terms mean the same, but at the time of the OT "world wide"
probably would have meant world wide as known to Noah or the author(s) of
Genesis, traditionally ascribed to Moses. A massive filling up of the Black
Sea, see Ryan and Pitman, is one possible explanation, although Glenn Morton
does not agree with this. The fiction of a global flood was reinvented by
the 7th Day Adventist George McCready Price in the first half of the 20th
century. Henry Morris latched onto this, and modern flood geology was reborn
in 1961 with the publication of the "Genesis Flood" by Morris and Whitcomb.
Most educated evangelical Protestants accepted that the flood was at best
local in the early parts of the 20th century. This whole nonsense of a
global flood is doing a lot of harm to Christianity by making it look absurd
and Santa Clausing it, i.e. children will tend to equate Santa Clause and his
magic sleigh with Noah and his magic boat. Any glaciologist will tell you
that the ice layers in Antarctica and Greenland contradict a global flood.
> Finally, let me put this to you: the motives of the early scientists -
> principally
> Christian - were free from guile; they simply desired to know more of God's
> creation and 'to think His thoughts after Him'. Today, on the other hand,
> the
As I said, many early geologists wanted to learn about God's creation by
looking directly at it, and learned through Christian and scholarly effort
that earth was much older than 6000 years and there was no global flood.
> prevailing mood is confrontational. Many see it as their calling to amass
> evidence
> that, (a) confirms the earth and cosmos to be exceedingly old (a necessary
> prerequiste for evolution), and (b) establishes evolution as an
indisputable
> fact
> - thereby dealing the Scriptures a mortal blow. Would it not be reasonable
Most scientists, Christian or otherwise, just want to learn about the earth
and the universe, regardless of what the Bible, Koran, or any other holy book
says or does not say, or how it is interpreted.
> to
> believe that whereas the former proceeded (and continue to proceed) with
God'
> s
> blessing, the latter must invite His anger and opposition? Bearing in mind
> His (to
> date, unfulfilled) promise to 'destroy the wisdom of the wise'
(Is.29:13-16),
> I
> believe it is essential that all Christians involved in this dialogue
> carefully
> examine their motives and test the strength of the evidence they think they
> possess - particularly in respect of the 'scientific rigour' displayed in
> gathering it - thereby ensuring that they avoid God's censure and the
> aforementioned 'destruction'.
Scientists have rigorously examined the evidence for the age of the earth and
the universe, and evolution, and continue to do so, and the "debate" was
settled over 100 years ago and YECs lost!
> Sincerely,
>
> Vernon
>
> http://www.otherbiblecode.com
Sincerely,
Christopher
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 05 2002 - 11:59:57 EDT