RE: Evolutionists' dilemma/WAS: My Daughter is a YEC

From: Wendee Holtcamp (wendee@greendzn.com)
Date: Fri Jun 07 2002 - 22:39:47 EDT

  • Next message: gordon brown: "Re: My Daughter is a YEC"

    Vernon,

    Your questions are worthy of an answer. However I unfortunately don't have
    the time right now to answer them with the detail and careful attention they
    deserve. In fact, I have plans (God willing) to write a book that will
    explain some of these issues at some point in the relatively near future.
    And that is part of the dilemma also -- the questions deserve a book to
    answer them! Its not something I could (well I could, but...) answer in a
    quickie email. Also, though I've been sending along my 0.02 here and there I
    really have a lot of work to do that I'm getting sidetracked from that is
    demanding my attention.

    One question -- are you interested in knowing the answers because you want
    to convince me that my position is invalid, or are you truly interested in
    knowing how I (or you or another Christian) can hold to an evolutionary
    creationists perspective? Because if you already have your mind made up then
    no argument, no matter how powerful or logical or rational or backed by
    evidence, will convince you.

    Ultimately, I believe evolution and creation are not crucial theological
    issues (though some may argue because of Christ and Adam etc it is...). I
    think obviously one position is "wrong" but I don't think God will "punish"
    anyone for having the wrong idea. I think its far more important to love and
    be kind and forgive others and teach these things than it is to have all our
    theological issues correct and all nicely packaged. Intellect and
    intellectual discussions are great for those so inclined as we are, but we
    Christians should never let them come before the primary goals of loving,
    and teaching others how to love.

    Regarding your dog-eat-dog scenario -- I sent one reply to the list about
    this, did you see it? Humans are different than the rest of creation by the
    spirit God gave us. And sin is in the world, we all know, so to me the
    dog-eat-dog issue is not "surprising." CS Lewis has a good discussion in the
    Problem of Pain on both human and animal pain, because he thought them
    worthy of thought and discussion. I'd suggest taking a look because I
    generally tend to agree with everything he wrote! He accepted evolution.

    Finally your questions are indeed interesting theological questions worthy
    of consideration. But personally (since you asked me, that is) I think that
    we can't interpret reality based on our understanding of the Bible or we get
    into the same kind of trouble that earth-centered universe people did. They
    fight and fight but they still ended up wrong. They lived and died and never
    knew the "truth" but well, one, I'm sure it didn't matter in the scheme of
    their salvation unless it affected their level of pride, and two, they could
    have done better by just humbly accepting the mystery of "not knowing"
    because there are many spiritual mysteries that we humans just will never
    have the complete understanding of, or even ability to understand (like the
    100% man, 100% God -- we can intellectually say it but we still can't fully
    grasp it -- but I'm ok with that, as most Christians are). We have to be OK
    accepting a lot of mystery. There may not be clear-cut answers to every
    single theological issue that relates to truths uncovered about the natural
    world by science. Either they will be revealed to future generations, or
    hopefully in heaven!

    I'm going to save your message so that when I begin work on my book, I can
    further discuss this with you.

    My best, Wendee
    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
           Wendee Holtcamp -- wendee@greendzn.com
        Environmental Journalist ~~ www.greendzn.com
       Adjunct Instructor of Biology, Kingwood College
    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
       -----Original Message-----
       Hi Wendee, thanks for writing.
       I see a number of dilemmas facing evolutionary creationists like yourself
    and, if I may, will introduce a few more following my answer to your
    specific question.

       The matter I raised in an earlier post was this: "Is it reasonable for the
    Christian to believe that Our Creator - Jesus Christ - the 'King of Love'
    (as we frequently sing) would slowly bring all things into being by a
    dog-eat-dog process - the latter stages of which would most certainly have
    involved human conflict - the antithesis of love?" I suggest it is most
    unreasonable [surely confirmed by His response to Cain's killing of
    Abel(Gen.4)]. Is it really possible that from the Mind of the One whose
    essential teaching was based on love, and who Himself was the supreme
    example of substitutionary sacrifice, has also come such a loveless and
    bizarre means of creation?!

       The second dilemma that confronts the thinking Christian evolutionist
    concerns the termination of the creation process. As far as the Scriptures
    are concerned, we are left in no doubt: all was accomplished in 6 days
    (however we care to interpret 'day').
       Gen.2:1 and Ex.20:11 are the relevant verses. On an evolutionary
    understanding of course the process is _interminably ongoing_.

       The third dilemma again arises as a rider to the first. In the Bible's
    closing chapters we are given a glimpse of the promised _new creation_. It
    is natural that we enquire whether this is also to be accomplished by a
    process of evolution. But, clearly not! It is described as an immediate and
    finished work.

       The fourth dilemma concerns the Flood. Evolutionists must believe it was
    _local_. However, if that be true it is pertinent that we ask why God
    required Noah to build so massive a sea-going structure to save himself, his
    immediate family, and representatives of all the created animal kinds, when
    there would have been ample time available for a much simpler escape to
    higher ground by foot! And, anyway, how are we able to reconcile the notion
    of a local flood with such verses as "And behold, I, even I am bringing the
    flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath
    of life, from under heaven." (Gen.6:17)?

       And if one is still not convinced that the Flood was most certainly
    _global_ (in every way), then consider the events attending its sequel -
    God's covenant with Noah. The rainbow was given as a sign that God would
    never again send a flood to destroy _all flesh_(Gen.9:15). Clearly, there
    have been many local floods worldwide since the days of Noah. It must surely
    follow that the _mabbul_ was no local flood. Indeed, scripturally, this
    Hebrew word is only used of Noah's flood.

       The New Testament references (Mt.24:37-39, Lk.17:26-27, 2Pe.2:5) serve to
    put the final nails into the coffin of this _pillar_ of evolutionary dogma.

       Sincerely,

       Vernon

       http://www.otherbiblecode.com

       Wendee Holtcamp wrote:

         Vernon Jenkins wrote:
    > You appear to have ignored the point I was making regarding
    > the Christian
    > evolutionist's dilemma, viz that
    > He who said 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself' also
    > happens to be Our
    > Creator, and if evolution indeed
    > be a reality, then how is He to be trusted when claiming to be 'the
    > way, the truth,
    > and the life...' (Jn.14:6)?!
    > Christianity and evolution are thus mutually exclusive.

         Can you explain why you believe that "love your neighbor as yourself"
         contradicts with evolution? I am interested in your meaning behind that
         because I didn't understand. You mention a dog-eat-dog idea of
    evolution --
         is that what you mean? If so, are you considering animals and plants to
    be
         our neighbors? Because if you're referring to humanity, evolutionary
         creationists (like myself) can believe that God imbued a spirit into
    humans
         at some point that differentiates us from the rest of created beings. It
    is
         this Spirit that allows us to transcend the dog-eat-dog nature that we
         indeed do see even among humans (look at the fundamentalists Muslims
    hating
         the Jews and murdering themselves to kill them, or the fighting between
    the
         Indian Hindus and Muslim Pakistanis right now, or the murders at
    Columbine).
         It requires transcending our human nature to grow into our spiritual
    nature.
         We can be 100% human and 100% spiritual beings, just as Jesus was. We
    are
         not God but we have His Holy Spirit within us, and are His sons and
         daughters.

         Just my thoughts. Would be curious what others think of them.

         Wendee

         %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
                Wendee Holtcamp -- wendee@greendzn.com
             Environmental Journalist ~~ www.greendzn.com
            Adjunct Instructor of Biology, Kingwood College
         %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 08 2002 - 02:27:22 EDT