Hi Christopher,
On this occasion I shall limit my attention to those matters arising from the
first paragraph of my last posting, and your response to it. I had said:
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.22:37-30) 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'.
Your responded:
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?
Clearly, you have completely missed the point I was making. And because I believe
it to be a most valid one, perhaps you will allow me to rehearse the thinking
which led to it.
(1) The Triune God of the Judaeo-Christian Scriptures - Father, Son and Holy
Spirit - is of One Mind.
(2) The Son, Jesus Christ, is both Creator and Messiah.
(3) As Messiah, He is the supreme embodiment of Love, in that on our behalf He
came to fulfil the demands of God's Law, (a) by living a sinless life and, (b) by
offering Himself up as a once for all sacrifice for the sins of humanity - past,
present and future.
(4) The necessity of the Incarnation and the events that followed point
conclusively to the desperate condition of post-edenic man - abundantly confirmed,
of course, (a) by what we know of ourselves, (b) by what we witness daily in the
world around us and, (c) by what God has to say about us, viz "the imagination of
man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gn.8:21), "Why do the nations so furiously
rage together against the Lord and His Anointed?" (Ps.2:1-2), and "The heart is
deceitful above all things and desperately wicked:..." (Jer.17:9).
(5) The truth appears to be that each of us is an 'intellectual cripple' in
respect of our understanding of the things that really matter in life! Out of love
and mercy God has provided the Bible - a body of absolute truth - for those who
realise that such knowledge can be acquired in no other way.
Christopher, so far I believe I have said nothing with which you, as a Christian,
could disagree. However, to press on:
(6) If I believe Creation was accomplished by an extended process of biological
evolution, then as a Christian I am confronted by two large obstacles, viz
* How do I explain the required chameleon-like behaviour of God's Son [and,
ultimately, of God Himself - whose counsel is said to be immutable
(Heb.6:17)]? As Creator, He opts for a long, loveless, process; and, as
Redeemer, He becomes the epitome of Love!!
* The 'Book of Nature' and 'Book of Life' (the Bible) have the same Author.
Should they not harmonise with one another, therefore? Why, for example, does
the first say landgoing creatures were created before birds, while the second
says the opposite? And why, according to the first, is the Creation ongoing -
the second having informed us that it was completed in 6 days? Again, why
doesn't the second openly declare the Flood to be 'local', and refrain from
using language like, "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."? And what was the giving of the rainbow all about? Finally,
why so much fuss regarding Cain's murder of his brother Abel? Under an
evolutionary regime, such goings on would surely be commonplace in its later
stages!
I realise these are awkward questions - but they need to be asked, and they need
to be honestly addressed by all who take upon themselves the title 'Christian
evolutionist'. In addition to yourself, perhaps Wayne and Stephen - having
recently contributed to this thread - would like to offer some answers.
Sincerely,
Vernon
CMSharp01@aol.com wrote:
> 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 : Sun Jun 09 2002 - 16:58:39 EDT