Re: I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG

wallyshoes wrote:
>
> So far, Glenn Morton, Dick Fischer and Michael Roberts (no surprise) have posted
> that they disagree and that we must continues with aggressive anti YEC
> approaches. Let me take this notion to task.
>
> I know a number of Christians who do not accept evolution but who have "no
> problem" with those Christians who do. In fact they would not even mind a class
> with teaches that there are various viewpoints and a book like "God Did It But
> How" would be acceptable. So let's say that I start a class like that:
>
> I start the class and handout class material consisting of articles and posts
> by Glenn, Dick and Michael. I explain that the class' young earth, anti
> evolution views are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG and that they should listen up. "What
> about the Bible" they ask? Oh well the above authors have 3 different views of
> the OT (and some people think that they are laughable) but that is irrelevant.
> What maters is that the class' "world view" view is WRONG because it does not
> conform to current scientific views.
>
> Should I be surprised when nobody shows up for the next class? Should I wonder
> why Joe Sebeny has been invited to make a presentation to the congregation?
>
> Glenn (only 2 "n"s), Dick and Michael would insist upon the "take no prisoners
> approach". The man in the pew must be taught to conform with what they say
> science is and there must be no two ways about it. (I wonder what their position
> is on the LEC letter that Jack haas sent out. Surely they could not support this
> with their own hard earned money.) Why, I wonder, do they not see how
> counterproductive that strategy is? That is why I suggested DeBono. Good
> reasoning does not make such errors. (IMO)
>
> Charitable contributions, like many other things, is a zero sum game. Is ASA a
> worthwhile effort? Is it just a dominantly incestuous group with a commitment to
> kill a young earth philosophy at any cost to the Christian community -- instead
> of attempting to either dialog or attack the LEADERS in the ICR, etc.?
>
> Contrary views are always solicited but I would truly love to hear from the
> "other side" also (if there is one on this list)..............................

        I think that a couple of necessary distinctions aren't being made in this
discussion.

        1st, rejection of YEC does not mean that one must accept evolution, or at least
full-blown evolution. E.g., one can construct reasonably plausible progressive
creationist scenarios in an OE framework in a way that doesn't confliect with scientific
evidence. I don't think that's theologically necessary or even desirable, or that the
scientific arguments for direct divine intervention at various points in the
evolutionary process is scientifically compelling, but that's another matter, but such
an argument doesn't require acceptance of absurdities. YEC does.

        2d, the average conservative Christian who accepts YEC &/or opposes evolution
simply because he or she has been told that Christians are supposed to take those
positions should be dealt with differently than active YEC spokespersons. There is some
possibility of changing the minds of the former group but very little chance for the
latter. Walt is right that the former group should be dealt with fairly gently. To the
extent that it's necessary to engage the latter group, Glenn is right: It's necessary
to show that their science is not only wrong but absurdly wrong. (& the point of this
isn't so much to convince Ham et al but to show folks in the first group that the
"experts" they were listening to are consistently in error.)

        (Addendum: As a couple of references here to recent AiG material have
indicated, they are now trying what seems to be a more sophisticated approach: What's
in question isn't the data but interpretation of the data. To the extent that that's
true, we need to put the rival claims in a Lakatosian context & argue forcefully that
YEC is a degenerating research program while evolution is at least a fitfully
progressive one. & BTW, I am not getting any commission for selling Lakatos' view of
scientific research programs which I've sketched here a couple of times. But I do think
that something like it is needed to deal with these issues.)

        Finally, one has to deal with the 1st group I mentioned above by first talking
about how to read the Bible. As long as they think that it _must_ be read in such a way
as to exclude an old earth &/or evolution, arguing about scientific evidence or theories
won't help. (It may even be harmful by convincing them that the Bible is wrong.) &
while I wouldn't rule out taking concordist approaches to parts of Genesis at some
stages in this educational process, we ought to recognize that as a halfway house.
  
                                                        Shalom,
                                                        George

George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Sat Dec 27 12:52:55 2003