From: John W Burgeson (jwburgeson@juno.com)
Date: Mon Oct 27 2003 - 01:41:00 EST
Friend Vernon, with whom I expect to spend millennia in the next life
unpacking all this stuff, wrote:
"Yes, Burgy, I can well understand your frustration with these infidels
and
sense your leaning toward a gulag-like solution to the problem, as you
see
it. >>
(1) I did not suggest -- even for a minute -- that they were, in any
sense of the word, "infidels."
(2) The term "gulag-like" suggests I want to shut them up. I am sorry to
give that impression; I wish to expose their silly ideas publicly as the
nonsense I believe it is.
"But I suggest the _real_ problem lies elsewhere: on your own doorstep,
in fact. For it is clear to me that like many on this list you are
content
to base your beliefs on a selected _subset_ of the available data. As a
result, your interpretation of what you do accept is inevitably skewed,
and
valueless."
I understand your charge. I reject it. Anyone who takes the trouble to
read my comments on Christianity on my web site knows that my claim is to
follow the truth as best I can, and in doing so to consider every scrap
of possible evidence. Now I will cheerfully admit to doing less than a
perfect job in this -- I am not perfect. But I reject utterly the
inference above that I am "content to base my beliefs on a selected
subset of the available evidence." That is emphatically not true. If my
interpretations are "skewed," (I think they are not), it is because of my
own imperfections or because there is evidence I have not yet
encountered.
I posted some long notes on the YEC seminar by Joe Sebeny here in Durango
recently. Look at them (they are on my website, page 2, section 4). Tell
me the EVIDENCE that would lead a rational person to reject anything I've
said there.
"For example, at the most fundamental level you blatantly ignore the
biblical
strictures concerning man (surely confirmed by one's knowledge of oneself
and of the world) and assume that the Christian is inevitably a _neutral_
observer and commentator in respect of ultimate origins. Again, you
overlook
Paul's clear warning to believers in respect of _the wiles of Satan_
(Eph.6:11-17) - ignoring the implications of this passage, which are
profound indeed, for they reach into every corner of our lives. Finally,
there are the Bible-based phenomena which Richard and I have brought to
your
attention over the past months and years - still largely unacknowledged,
and
still awaiting detailed assessment by those committed to following truth,
no
matter where it may lead."
I wondered when you were going to get around to your pet thesis. I do not
see where that thesis has any particular relationship to the YEC
question.
"Burgy, it appears that you have yet to understand that some Christians
do
see the _bigger picture_ (as I have outlined it above) and conclude that
where God's revelation speaks specifically of a particular matter then
nothing more can, or should, be said. "
Bigger picture? Well, perhaps. A different picture, to be sure. My
admiration for one YEC (Gosse) is based on the fact that he did not try
to deny the clear evidences of science, but indeed follow your words
above almost exactly. And if one clings to a YEC position SOLELY ON
SCRIPTURE, and does not cite "scientific reasons" for that belief,
content to say "I don't know" then I have respect for him and I do not
consider his YEC position nonsense (wrong, of course, but that's quite
another matter).
"Accordingly, your list of names is
hardly a _roster of shame_. Rather, it reveals that many respectable
academics now heed the scriptural warnings against unbelief, and realize
that in respect of extrabiblical reconstructions of earth history, the
pronouncements of science can carry little real authority."
If they did not support ICR as they do, I would not include them on the
roster. Sorry I did not include the fact that all on the roster are on
the ICR Technical Advisory Staff" and have their names included on the
ACTS & FACTS cover letter. Since ICR appeals to "science," and does so in
an incompetent and unprofessional manner, I must imput ICR's sins to them
as well.
"Some advice: rather than 'fear for our civilization', why not follow
Glen's
sage advice: in your deliberations, ensure that you accomodate _all_ the
data that bears upon the matter of origins. To base your thesis on
anything
less clearly denigrates the scientific traditions we revere."
It's Glenn, not Glen. And, as I have said before, I do my best to do just
the above. I am in full agreement, therefore, with your closing sentence.
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 26 2003 - 13:49:03 EST