From: John W Burgeson (jwburgeson@juno.com)
Date: Tue Oct 28 2003 - 06:32:50 EST
Blake wrote a very thoughtful response to my initial post on this
subject. I reply below to part of that post.
"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."
An interesting observation; I have to agree with it. Of course Gould was
called a Marxist by some, and I've audited seminary classes from post
modernists (the last being William Dean at Iliff last year). I was struck
by how Dean was able to teach the positions of theologians he personally
disagreed with (including at least one fundamentalist) without
denigrating either the ideas espoused or the person involved.
Personally, I find both Marxism and post modernism to be implausible and
a strain on credulity. But I do not see either as being the kind of
nonsense that scientific creationism exhibits. Not even close.
I had cited 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? Blake wrote:
"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? ... It seems
like a gratuitous slam that has nothing to do with the
person's actual competence as a physician. "
I have to disagree. When your plumbing stops up, would you engage a
plumber who supplements his income by throwing tarot cards? Might you
suspect that he might look for supernatural causes for your sink
stoppage?
Knowing Dr. Marshall's peculiar YEC beliefs, I would not hire him for an
allergy test, for his medical science is most surely compromised. How can
I know what parts of modern medicine he accepts and what parts he rejects
because of them?
I had written: "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." Blake responded:
"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. Do we know that
each of these people has particular
ideas about creation science as opposed to ignorance
of particular areas of scientific inquiry?"
It was my error that I did not identify these persons as associated
intimately with ICR. Apologies.
"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."
Again -- they ARE teaching YEC views by allowing their names and degrees
to be associated intimately with ICR.
"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."
And here is the rub, Bob. A person becomes a Xtian -- perhaps as a
youngster -- perhaps as a youth. He/she has faith in the risen Christ.
Then along comes Morris, Willis, Sebeny, Ham, etc. who explain to him/her
a theological construct in which a YEC view is foundational. He is
overjoyed to find more grounds for his faith. Then one day he finds out
the YEC stuff is a sham. The foundation he had come to rely upon is
shattered. And, regretfully, he leaves the faith.
This exact scenario has happened to two close friends of mine -- one to a
childhood friend as a college freshman, the second to a long time fellow
church member, a medical doctor, who with great regret last year told us
he could no longer believe the gospel "because of Darwin" and resigned
from our fellowship. I lunch with him about once a month; he is clearly
sad about this -- and bears the church no ill will -- but he is
determined to follow the truth as best he can, and this is where it has
led him.
Glenn (NOT "Glen"), has several testimonies of this sort on his website.
"What exactly are they (the YECs) winning? I am sure you are
making implicit arguments here -- I would assert the
problem is mainly theological rather than scientific."
They are winning the political war. They are winning the hearts and minds
of thousands -- perhaps millions -- of Christians in the
fundamentalist/conservative churches all over the land. I mentioned
before the thrust of the NCR (New Christian Right) into private schools
and home schools. The ICR is capitalizing on this trend. One estimate I
saw is that there are over 1,000,000 students in nonpublic schools as we
speak. How many are using ICR/AIG materials? I can only guess. I've
visited some internet chat groups devoted to home schools to suspect that
the percentage is pretty high.
20 years ago the ICR, along with a "Bible-Science" Newsletter out of
Wisconsin, was about the only YEC organization around. Ken Ham split off
from ICR and his AIG is large enough now to be building a creation
science museum in Kentucky (or Tennessee?). Tom Willis, a colleague of
mine at IBM, left there to found CSAMA, Creation Science Association of
Mid-America. I think the AOSA (Arizona Origin Science Association) is
another newcomer. All these organizations have growing constituencies.
"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."
I think we need to engage the YEC movement on every front possible.
Whether one or the other is the more efficient is a call I cannot make.
But I observe that fundamentalist/conservative churches are on the
ascendancy, and I have no real problem with that (my son is a Southern
Baptist minister), but it is those churches which are listening to the
ICR/AIG sirens, not the mainline denominations. Or the Catholics.
"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? "
People are looking for certainties. These churches say they can provide
that. ICR also provides certainty. It is their greatest strength. It is
also their greatest weakness, for the certainty they preach is so easily
swept away for anyone that seriously engages the arguments.
"I think a diagnosis of the problem and hence how to
win the war needs a more well-defined problem."
I agree. I claim no answers here, only questions and the observation that
the duke has holes in it.
I had written: "I fear for our civilization." Blake wrote:
"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."
It WAS a throwaway line, Blake. This is not at all an "academic" issue
with me. But yes, I do fear the scenario in your second sentence (though
I've not yet read the referenced book -- it is on my shelf). And yes, I
also fear the scenario of the marginalization of Xtianity. I see two
possible futures -- quite different from one another -- both possible if
the YEC problem is not addressed head on:
1. Xtianity is marginalized.
2. A theocratic Xtianity eventually prevails.
I'm not sure which would be the worse of the two civilizations to live
in. Probably #2. I'm not at all sure the people of scenario #2 would
qualify any longer as "Christian."
Thanks for the intellectual stimulation, Blake.
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 : Mon Oct 27 2003 - 18:32:30 EST