Re: The YEC's have won

Burgy wrote:

"The YECs have permanently co-opted evangelical Christianity, and, as
the mainstream denominations fade away, will eventually "become"
Christianity."

Here's something to mull:

Biola U in southern California has been hosting lots of lectures pertaining to science and Christianity over the past couple of years, and because I live nearby and have been interested in the topics, I've attended several. I'd always thought of Biola as a bastion of fundamentalism in the worst sense of the word, but the more I see of them the less I believe they're such worst-case fundamentalists.

Judging from audience questions, some of the students are about as bad as they get, but certainly not all, and it's impossible for me to estimate percentages. However, all the lecturers who've had PhDs in science--and that's (I think) a large majority--so far have invariably (although sometimes apologetically) presented the scientifically accepted ages for whatever world phenomena they've been talking about.

A lecture last Monday by John Bloom, a Biola faculty member with PhDs in physics and ancient near eastern studies, is freshest in my mind. He devoted the first half of his 3-hour lecture to an overview of hominid (and Neanderthal) data, including some details of bone structure differences and cultural artifacts or lack thereof. Then he speculated about whether Adam may have been Homo erectus. In the second half he compared DNA between humans and other animals. (I'd thought human DNA was more similar to that of chimps than to any other across the board, but he pointed out that the human Y chromosome is more similar to that of pigs than chimps, and chromosome 16 to cats than chimps.) He also had interesting things to say about usefulness of "junk" DNA. His goal was to support Genesis creation accounts, but he didn't soft-pedal the science and consistently referred to dates in the tens of thousands to millions of years, and then he defended scientists' dating methods. He also spoke favorably of theistic evolution as a viable alternative to creationism.

His main concessions to YECs were a certain amount of conciliatory language and mention of the title and author of a book that fit all the hominid data into a six-day creation scenario. But he didn't take more than about five minutes or so in toto on the six-day model. And there was no hint of audience outrage.

I conclude that the YEC hold on Christianity is not as tight as you believe. There are plenty of vociferous, noisy YEC proponents, to be sure, but I get the impression their following in the trenches is not that committed. This impression is reinforced by private interactions with members of the very conservative evangelical congregation I associate with.

 Don

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: John and Carol Burgeson<mailto:burgytwo@juno.com>
  To: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
  Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 7:50 AM
  Subject: The YEC's have won

  Consolidating several comments:

  """Social Security is founded on the principle, that, because some people

  won't save for retirement, all must be punished." -- FrankJ (imao.us)""

  That's a silly statement. One may hold various positions on SS without
  making silly statements.

  One thing about SS -- it is not and was not only saving for retirement.
  It is and was designed to provide a safety net for those who might be
  disabled.

  That being said, I find Bush's arguments that some sort of private
  accounts might make sense.

>> I don't underestimate the seriousness of the YEC problem but
  "consolidate their victory" language is counterproductive - besides being

  untrue. >>

  Why is it counterproductive to say what is so clearly a fact?

>> (If it were correct, YEC stuff would be legally taught as science
  in public schools, which is not the case.)>>

  Watch this space. That, too, will happen. It is part of their "mopping
  up."

>> Among other things, such language is likely to encourage a lot of
  ordinary Christians to cave in to YECism who might not otherwise do so.>>

  I visualize Adolph saying much the same thing in late 1944 as the Allies
  advanced.

  It may take another 50 years, George. But delaying actions are no more
  than that.

>> I suggest that if NBC seems to view AiG favorably, or
  even if it fails to ask their reps some challenging questions, people
  should
  call, email or write NBC, identify themselves as Christians (that's
  important) and, if appropriate, scientists, and tell them in no uncertain

  terms that AiG's claims are absurd. (That would, of course, be a waste
  of
  time if the YECs were in fact already victorious.)>>

  Yes. It would be a waste of time. Better to go out and smell the roses.

  Cahrles wrote: "What victory have the YECs had recently anyway? I'm not
  sure what you
  are referring to, Burgy."

  Several things, Charles.

  1. The YECs have won a permanent place in one of our political parties,
  and, as such, are going to have an every increasing say in the American
  culture.

  2. The YECs have won legitimacy as a Christian sect, and there is now no
  possibility of reason to counteract them.

  3. The YECs have permanently co-opted evangelical Christianity, and, as
  the mainstream denominations fade away, will eventually "become"
  Christianity. Splinter movements will exist; they will be small.
  Megachurches like that of James Kennedy will rule.

  I think the turning point for all this passed last year. I don't see any
  possibility now to turn the tide.

  Burgy
Received on Sat Mar 26 04:33:51 2005