From: Dr. Blake Nelson (bnelson301@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Oct 24 2003 - 19:41:22 EDT
Let me start by saying I empathize with your general
sentiments. But, let me make a couple of observations
followed by a couple request for a better explication
of the preceived problem in order to perhaps come up
with a pathology of what is going on, which then
suggests what kind of response is appropriate.
I agree that it is odd that "respectable academics"
can be YECs, but it may also be seen to be odd to the
general populace that "respectable academics" can be
Marxists, post-modernists, and a variety of other
acceptable beliefs in the academy that are not widely
held in the general populace and many people
(including academicians) find to be implausible and
straining credulity.
The answer psychologically is probably the same as for
how they can be YECs.
--- John W Burgeson <jwburgeson@juno.com> wrote:
> What puzzles me is the number of purportedly
> respectable academics who
> support young earth creation-- specifically ICR.
(SNIP)
> Gailen Marshall Jr., Ph.D, M.D., Director of Allergy
> & Clinical
> Immunology, University of Texas (Houston). Like the
> late physicist Thomas
> Barnes, who labored for the U of Texas El Paso, only
> this guy treats
> people for real problems. Anyone on this list want
> to consult him?
I think this comment, and others like it, is a little
unfair. How does having a belief that to you is odd
impair someone as a physician? This smacks of the
swipes that I have read some atheists take about not
wanting a "religious" doctor, because they might only
pray for them rather than using the best technical
skill and science to treat their illness. It seems
like a gratuitous slam that has nothing to do with the
person's actual competence as a physician.
I can see a more direct conflict with professions such
as a geo- or astro- physicist or astronomer, etc., but
I do not see why a doctor, janitor, or pipe welder
would care about the age of the universe in order to
do their job well.
However, I certainly would suspect that their theology
might be suspect.
(SNIP)
> Guys -- these are real people. They hold what are,
> to almost all of us,
> views which denigrate both the scientific traditions
> we revere, and many
> of the findings of our sciences.
I think more problematically, they *may* misrepresent
the Christian witness in a significantly problematic
manner if their scientific creationist beliefs are
based on theological presumptions.
On one level, their views on science and the age of
the earth do not matter if they are not related to any
assertion of that is what Christianity is or requires.
> They need to be loved as fellow Christians; their
> IDEAS need to be
> exposed for the frauds they are.
Do we know that each of these people has particular
ideas about creation science as opposed to ignorance
of particular areas of scientific inquiry?
> But while we fiddle around, and sometimes win a few,
> they are winning the
> war. And their students, in many cases, are turning
> from the faith when
> the fraud is exposed; it is hard for me to blame
> them.
Isn't it a bit of a leap to assume that they are
teaching YEC views? It is less of a leap to imagine
the YEC view is theologically motivated, which I think
is more problematic if the case.
I do think there is a problem with those who simply
turn away from faith because on "fraud" perpetrated on
them is exposed. On one hand, I am concerned that
faith based on a proof of God through being shown that
the earth is 6,000 years old is perhaps not on a firm
rock. I am less concerned about faith based on Jesus
of Nazareth, the crucified and risen Christ even if
the person happens to believe things I might consider
not having good grounds for belief. Again, this goes
to the theology. For Christians, IMHO, faith based on
Gen. 1-2 rather than Jesus of Nazareth is problematic.
> Maybe I'm wrong. maybe the YECers are NOT winning.
> But I've asserted such
> on this list (and elsewhere) many times; I don't
> recall a rebuttal. So
> what happens when (or if) they do win?
What exactly are they winning? I am sure you are
making implicit arguments here -- I would assert the
problem is mainly theological rather than scientific.
Rather than fighting the science, one needs to fight
the bad theology first. I would venture to guess that
most of the time when people have a particular view of
scientific creationism, they do so because they have a
theology that requires it. That seems the bigger
problem. People are vastly ignorant about all sorts
of things, but that is hardly either a bar to
salvation or the loss of a war, whatever war that
might be. Allowing christianity to be painted by a
particular, narrow theological view is losing the war
(especially if it is contrary to the vast majority of
belief in the tradition). It is the theology that
needs to be corrected, not the science. Correct the
theology and the barriers to correcting the science
may be more likely to fall.
Perhaps a question that is worth posing is, if
denominations that are more YEC are gaining strength
at the expense of denominations that don't have YEC
tendencies, why is that so?
I am not sure that is happening, but mainline
protestant denominations are losing members and more
evangelical denominations are growing (I don't know if
the data available about this phenomenon determines
whether they are leaving mainline for more evangelical
denominations or not), despite generally not having
the kind of YEC views that concern you... why are they
losing out to those other denominations (if they are)?
Are people attracted by YEC as a theological and
scientific position? If so, why? And how does one
counter it? Is the appeal the "certainty" provided by
having scripture "prove" itself to be true in every
sense? Or is it something else?
I think a diagnosis of the problem and hence how to
win the war needs a more well-defined problem.
> I fear for our civilization.
This seems a non-sequitir unless one explains why
exactly fear for civilization matches up with a person
believing the earth is less old.
Is it because you presume such scientific ignorance
will lead to luddite, "fundamentalist" oppression a la
a scenario like the _Handmaiden's Tale_? Is it that a
posited marginalization of Christianity resulting from
the "distorted" witness provided by creation
scientists will cause a falling away from the faith
and a concomitant erosion of important values
championed by Christianity such as a respect for life,
a radical (and true) humanism, etc.? It would help to
explicate your causal nexus to come to grips with the
problem.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 24 2003 - 19:41:47 EDT