A sound and sharp response by Christopher, but one criticism. YECs only go
back to Henry Morris and McCready Price. Before that they were a minority
group as from 1600 most educated Christians did not follow a strict YEC
approach and that was before the wicked geologists came along. Any we should
distinguish those like Columbus Calvin and Luther who held a 6 day creation
because there was no evidence against and today's YECs who fabricate
evidence to show that the earth is young. I dont think fabricate is too
strong a word.
It is us old earthers who are the traditional christians
I get fed up with these arguments but they mislead so many people on both
sides of the pond.
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: <CMSharp01@aol.com>
To: <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: My Daughter is a YEC
>
> 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 - 19:07:55 EDT