Re: Sarfati's books (was Wells and Molecular Phylogenies)

From: Ted Davis (tdavis@messiah.edu)
Date: Thu Oct 30 2003 - 05:21:27 EST

  • Next message: Walter Hicks: "Re: Sarfati's books (was Wells and Molecular Phylogenies)"

    Michael wrote:
    Back to Paul Nelson. Is he any better than a biblical flat-earther who
    believes the earth is flat because of the only reasonable interpretation of
    Gen 1 6-8, Ex20, 4 and Isaiah 40 22? I cant see how he can accept biblical
    arguments for a young earth unless he goes for a flat earth as well. (Please
    no khug-khugging!)

    No, Michael, as you fully realize, Paul Nelson does not believe in a flat
    earth. Now let me deal with what I believe is the *real* question here: how
    can he accept a young earth? The answer, for Paul, is *not* scientific--he
    admits (unlike most YEC people) that the scientific evidence does not favor
    a YEC position. The answer is *moral* and *theological*, driven partly of
    course by scriptural concerns but also by moral concerns. He cannot
    reconcile millions of years of suffering and death in the animal kingdom,
    with the love of God. I've often said, that this is the driving force
    behind YEC; Paul is a perfect example of why I have said this.

    As he made clear once again last evening, that concern outweighs for him the
    scientific issues related to an old earth. He does not see how to put his
    moral and theological world together with an old earth. It isn't because
    he's stupid or ignorant--he's as bright as many other philosophers I know
    and he's far better informed about the details of evolutionary biology than
    I am, and perhaps even than you are (the monograph he's completing, On
    Common Descent, is for a series of standard scientific studies on evolution
    edited by a leading biologist at the Univ of Chicago). It's because he
    can't put his moral world together in any other way.

    This was precisely the same concern Bryan had 80 years ago. Bryan of course
    accepted an old earth and death before the fall; but he could not put
    evolution by natural selection--the "law of hate" he called it, with good
    reason (this was based on what he saw in social darwinism,
    worldwide)--together with the "law of love," that is the gospel of Christ.

    I'm not interested in badgering Paul to accept the evidence for an ancient
    earth and universe. I am interested in understanding more fully why he, and
    many other Christians, cannot accept that idea.

    ted



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 30 2003 - 05:26:33 EST