Hi Wendee,
Thanks for your prompt response. I'm glad you think my questions worthy
of an answer and look forward to further discussions with you in due
course. In the meantime I'll just comment on some of the points you've
raised.
.
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.
I pose these 'dilemmas' in order to demonstrate the widely held view,
'creation by evolution', to be untenable. Every Christian (by divine
definition) is 'a lover of truth' (Jn.18:37) and is thus required to
carefully scrutinise and weigh all 'doctrines of men' that come his/her
way. [The so-called 'proofs' of evolution that have, so far, been
brought to my attention I find unconvincing and, in my view, incapable
of overturning the 'dilemmas'.] For the Christian it is mandatory also
that he/she believes the teachings of Jesus. In his 'sermon on the
mount', in particular, the Lord made reference to two matters which are
apposite in this context. He said, (1) No man can serve two masters...
(Mt.6:24) and, (2) ... by their fruits ye shall know them (Mt.7:15).
It is clear to me that the evolutionary creationist is ignoring these
nuggets of sound instruction. Regarding the first, the two masters are
represented by _Evolution_ and _Judaeo-Christian Scriptures_,
respectively. The dominant 'master', without doubt, is the former (for
its demands are always met) - despite the fact that it is the latter
which lays claim to be divinely-revealed truth and the sole repository
of the offer of eternal life to believers! And, concerning 'fruits',
what are we to conclude re the fundamental nature of a doctrine that
encouraged both Hitler and Stalin to commit their unspeakable acts? [For
whilst admitting that a similar charge might well be laid at the door of
Christianity, there is an important difference: this particular faith
does not invite such aberrations.] Further, evolution has progressively
undermined the Scriptures and encouraged criticism and compromise.
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.
I think we have to be careful when we substitute our own ideas of how we
think God should act for sound biblical doctrine. We have to remember
that Christ also said, for example, "Not every one that saith unto me,
Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the
will of my Father which is in heaven." (Mt.7:21). I suggest that that
'will' must include our making the best use of whatever 'talents' we
have received. In the light of the Scriptures. therefore, any doctrine
that depends fundamentally on scientific observations and deductions
involving the 'long ago' and the 'far away' needs to be very carefully
examined - particularly when it requires us to rewrite the early
chapters of what we clearly understand to be a body of _revealed
truth_.
Sincerely, and with best wishes,
Vernon
Wendee Holtcamp wrote:
> 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 - 19:30:28 EDT