Jack Syme wrote:
I am not sure why the discussion on
this list is always so negative against both ID and YEC. IMO in the
big picture, this battle is a minor one. The most important belief
that we all have, and share with our creationist brothers, is the
Gospel. Most evangelical Christians dont really care that much
about the creation/evolution issue, knowing Christ is much more
important.
The Bible-science debate is a multi-faceted issue. Knowing Christ
is the overriding issue. However, due to the misguided, protracted
efforts of creationist organizations, the Bible is being tied to an
errant interpretation. Abusing science in the process, they then
foist the entire package on the "willingly ignorant."
They are making evangelism more difficult. We not only need to
present the gospel to skeptics, we have to dispel all the misinformation
they have been exposed to. Not an easy task. Who reads our
ruminations?
In essence, those educated in science have been handed a Get Out of Jail
Free card. "Eat, drink and be merry," and all that.
We have to take it away from them before they need worry about the
consequences of dying outside the faith.
It seems to me that we are losing
sight of the real enemy, which is philosophical materialism, atheistic
naturalism.
Enemies are all around us. Satan is the real enemy. And he
uses lies wherever they advance his cause.
We should be reaching out to
scientist non believers, and showing them that the Bible, and science are
compatible. This issue is more about apologetics than
polemics.
Absolutely agreed! So what does TE contribute to the problem of
resolving Bible-science conflict? Is Genesis allegory, poetry,
tradition or mythology? Or Semitic history, as a few of us have
advocated - and that has not been advanced by any TEs I know. If we
don't give conservatives a better solution then they have, they will
continue to ride a dead horse to the detriment of evangelicals.
Certainly there are things I
disagree with YEC about. And there are things about ID I disagree
with too. But I dont see how one cannot embrace some of the
things that ID proponents are trying to do, and still hold to
TE.
And how do we educate the rest of the public?
I honestly think that trying to
come up with a mathematical model to identify design, IS
scientific. There are going to be spots in the scientifc account of
creation/evolution that will never have a purely naturalistic
explanation. It has to be that way, because at some point, God
intervened, and supernatural causes are going to be the only
explanation.
He doesn't need to "intervene" in His own creation. It is
His creation from the get go. How closely or intimately He
supervises the process by which the creation unfolds is the
issue.
Dick Fischer -
Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
Received on Wed Feb 16 11:33:15 2005