Re: I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG

I think that reaching the average YEC sympathizer in the pew will require a theological approach (rather than scientific). It's also important to examine a particular argument rather than a ssweeping "YEC is wrong", especially when it is not clear whether you mean all young earth views or the popular claims of creaiton science.

>> 2.) Many Christians have little background in science and depend upon a relatively literal reading of scripture. To them, evolution (as taught in the secular community) is abhorrent. It replaces God with a RANDOM process (and they are not about to, listen to a “song and dance” about how God controls the random process since that flies in the face of very meaning of the word).<<

This is actually a good issue to use because it readily allows a contrast between Biblical claims and atheistic arguments. The audience can be left to realize that the atheistic arguments are being endorsed by antievolutionists as well.

Random has several senses. It can mean "described by the laws of probability", e.g., random mutations, quantum uncertainty, flipping a coin, or casting lots. It can mean "humanly unpredictable", like the long-term course of evolution or history or weather. It can mean "purposeless" or "unplanned", like random violence or the unaimed shot of an archer. All of these lists of examples include something that the Bible specifically credits God with the ability to control (lots, history, weather, and Ahab's killer). They also include things that we see happening all the time. Depending on the Arminian versus Calvinistic views of your audience, such everyday randomness is accepted as either things that God can change or work around or as things fully under His determination. Either way, randomness in evolution or any other scientific process does not exclude God.

Ultimate purposelessness would eliminate God from the picture. However, purposelessness (and purpose) are not scientifically determinable, so the claim that scientific evidence of randomness rules out God is a logical error. Even a gambler trusting in luck thinks that there is some supernatural influence on random events, and most religions hold that there can be supernatural influence (if not determination) of random events. Thus, to argue that randomness implies atheism is wrong. Randomness can pose a problem for god of the gap theologies (which are implied by the claim that random forces replace God), but those are not Biblical, much less inclusive of all theologies.

Note also that there are strong non-random, as well as random aspects, to evolution. It closely resembles human history. Biblically, we believe that God is working out His purposes through the course of history, yet a historian would not be able to determine those purposes simply by examining historical records.

Purposelessness may require a bit of extra examination, because it depends on the level of consideration. E.g., if I flip a coin to make a decision, neither the coin nor the laws of physics have a purpose in view, but I do. > a Biblical viewpoint, the forces of nature are merely descriptions of how creation works, not deities. Therefore, scientific study of these forces will not detect purposes. If we read the Bible, we can find out about God's purpose for these forces (principally that He does have purposes for them rather than why E=mcc and not mc).

    Dr. David Campbell
    Old Seashells
    University of Alabama
    Biodiversity & Systematics
    Dept. Biological Sciences
    Box 870345
    Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
    bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com

That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa

                 
Received on Mon Dec 29 15:23:14 2003