From: Dr. Blake Nelson (bnelson301@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Oct 27 2003 - 21:06:02 EST
Thanks for a thoughtful response to my post.
The intimate relationship with those folks with ICR
does vitiate some of my concern about unfairly
painting these folks with too broad of a brush.
--- John W Burgeson <jwburgeson@juno.com> wrote:
(SNIP)
> 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.
This may be a matter of degree. But, I imagine that
it is largely true. Although, the contortions
creation science go through seems to me consistent
with the contortions of many more fringe ideologies
and ideas. The fact that such a movement garners as
much support as you suggest is troubling.
> 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?
Well, I will say that if the person has ideas that
make them seem mentally unstable to you I wouldn't
want them fooling with my plumbing. It would depend,
to me, on the person's actions, demeanor, behavior and
not just on their affiliation with a group that has
ideas I consider whacky.
> 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?
Well, the fact is that unless you talk to him, you
can't know. I have had friends who grew up in parts
of the rural midwest where they had particular
dentists or doctors who had exceedingly peculiar ideas
that were not predicated on particular other out of
the mainstream beliefs. For example, dentists who
were against flouride, or thought flossing was
unnecessary. These odd beliefs about their
profession, as far as I was aware, were unrelated to
any other belief structure they had. So, I do not
think that on the basis of believing something with
which I disagree automatically disqualifies them from
being good at their profession.
> 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.
No problem. I can see your sentiments more clearly
given those missing facts.
(SNIP)
> "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.
Yes, I see this point. But this is due to bad
theology and poor education re what the Bible is
about. I think the problem is several fold, probably
most importantly certainty as you discuss and I will
too, below.
> 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.
It's certainly rationally understandable to me on one
level, but I simply cannot relate to the response
given the fact that broad swaths of the tradition are
not encumbered with any creation science nonsense.
While there are many things that may lead me to
conclude a belief system is false or wrong, one
narrowly sectarian version of that belief system alone
would not be enough data for me to base such a
conclusion on... leaving aside the *personal* aspects
of christianity.
> Glenn (NOT "Glen"), has several testimonies of this
> sort on his website.
Yes, and I think, if it was Paul Seeley's (?) take on
creation science --> atheism continuum was exactly
right. The worldview stays the same throughout -- and
I think it a wrong worldview -- only how the data are
weighed and what is authoritative changes.
> "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.
yeah, but here is the real problem -- why do these
things get tied together? It is a political problem,
and sadly, what I think happens in people's minds is
groups of things get bundled together -- people see an
attack on religiosity in school systems, school
systems add or debate various programs that offend
people's moral sensibilities (rightly or wrongly) such
as birth control, multiculturalism, sex education,
revisionist history, religious expression, etc.
It seems easy for a worldview to be simplified that on
one hand are the "godless, commie, p.c., encourage
sexual promiscuity, etc." freaks -- and the choice is
to withdraw from all of it and buy a big ball of
counter beliefs.
I genuinely think that the reason why this has
happened is because local control of school content
has eroded, the tides of ideology in school systems,
especially in traditionally populist areas, have
changed considerably, and what you have is an odd
aggregation of "culture war" factors. So, yes, it is
partly political. And, in part, I can empathize, if
not sympathize, with the feelings of lots of people
that the public school system no longer represents or
reflects them.
top it off, as I have discussed before, with strident
ideologues like Dawkins saying that Darwin disproves
God, etc. Lots of school board reform in science was
advocated by people who also happened to be atheists.
It is easy for people to associate the fact that they
are atheists or of some other religion with the fact
that they are trying to foist a new set of curricula
on the school. It is absolutely wrong to make those
kinds of connections (like I think it is wrong to
assume an ICR affiliate cannot be a good doctor), but
it is not surprising, at least to me, that those might
be the kind of connections people draw.
(SNIP)
The growth of ICR type stuff is puzzling to me, except
I think you are right. It is easier to accept the
certainty for most people than to live with ambiguity.
As I have mentioned before in response to a post by
Howard I think, both dogs in the bigger fight have
huge resources. I find it not at all unsurprising
that there is populist backlash to a lot of stuff that
is rightly or wrongly tied to either atheistic or
leftist agendas. It is understandable that things
might be perceived that way.
For the reasons I discussed in the same post to Howard
months ago, it is hard to organize interest groups of
those in the middle. I don't know that creation
science is on the ascendancy for any reason other than
they are making a concerted effort and actively
publicizing themselves. Perhaps, someone needs to try
to organize a well-funded organization with
academicians and theologians doing the lecture circuit
to all the small congregations, too... fight fire
with fire.
But will such a thing happen?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 27 2003 - 21:06:30 EST