Re: RATE Vol. II

I was tempted to start this under a new subject thread titled "from the
trenches", but I don't think it strays too far from the subject of
'age' and the ASA's here-discussed question about how aggressive to be
with this position.

In the spirit of Iain's gentle exhortation, I wish to add a challenge &
seek advice. Probably, most of you (by your own good design, no doubt)
are in career positions which limit your contacts with YEC advocates to
non-professional settings. I.e. you can safely be aggressive about
'eradicating' young-earth heresies from Christendom, and in fact, to the
extent that YEC topics ever come up - you would be required to respond
that way under the pressure of jeopardizing your career path. (NO - I
am NOT imputing false motives to any of you here - I am NOT suggesting
that the only reason you think as you do is for career advance; I agree
fully that your career would be rightly jeopardized by a YE position on
the sound grounds that scientific evidence is clearly against it.) But
what I'm suggesting is that beyond some of your church settings (which
is challenge enough in its own right) most of you have the luxury of
enthusiastic aggression at no professional sacrifice to yourselves - a
thought not lost on your YEC opponents who DO impute false motives to
you. As a teacher at a Christian school in Ks, I have exactly the
reverse pressure of being supported by my church (somewhat liberal on
this issue), and being surrounded professionally by many YEC proponents
/ tuition paying clientele. I do exaggerate my plight some - our school
hasn't made any formal position statements on this, and my reading is
only based on the predictably noisier presence of the YECs among us.

And I anticipate your response to me: so make some noise of your own
and empower any silent ones who think likewise! Easy said. Such
boat-rocking will have two possible outcomes that I can see. The
school will, in a backlash, make YEC part of their official faith
statement and clean house (I go elsewhere). Or enough support for the
challenge will materialize that the school chooses not to endorse
doctrinally divisive positions and advises us to defer such questions to
family or local church. Meanwhile I continue to teach science (in the
'pussy-footing' manner as George would put it) by saying 'this group
believes... and here's why' and 'that group believes ... and this is
why...' and only staking my own position in all of it if pointedly
asked. Not exactly a strong stand, and you can impute false
(job-keeping) motives to me if you wish.

But let me at least make some defense of my hesitations: The YEC has
historically had the same spiritual objection that they still voice
that acceptance of geological antiquity leads to acceptance of full
evolution which leads to spiritual falling away. And while reading
Number's book on the creationists, I'm not finding many encouraging
answers to this challenge. Both examples and counterexamples are found
in his book -- my favorite counterexample being C.S. Lewis who is
fairly respected. During his prime as a Christian he saw no danger to
the faith from evolution - though Numbers leaves the impression that he
kept it at arm's length. And yet Lewis apparently suffered some doubts
in his later years, not at all because he was impressed by any YEC
arguments, but because he was so concerned about the rampant
materialistic conclusions that he saw so many evolutionists embracing.

To some extent, I inherit his concern. My YEC colleagues would not make
it past the introduction in Numbers' work where he candidly admits that
after finding his fundamentalist creationist upbringing to be
scientifically lacking, he "slid down the proverbial slippery slope
toward unbelief." This adds explosive fuel to the warfare model of
science and religion, and some (not all) of the examples he so honestly
and sympathetically follows in his book do as well. Who constitutes the
'exception' and who is the 'rule' depends on whose side you're on.

So I am left without a good answer for this challenge. The YEC camp is
right about ancient earth leading to acceptance of full-fledged
evolution. (How many of you stopped at believing ancient earth?) We
all presume they are NOT right about evolution leading to spiritual
decline, but the challenge is to show that the spiritual mischief stems
from YEC heresy with its violent reaction to apparent scientific truth -
not from the scientifically established truths themselves. I know some
of you have already provided a stellar example of robust faith and soft,
loving tongue combined with full acceptance of evolutionary thought. -
the many authors in Keith's 'Perspectives...' come to mind. And some of
us need some work. If YEC people are to be given good answers, it will
have to come from patient and loving role modeling that demonstrates
that their fears of spiritual danger are unfounded. But the sticky
thing in all this for me? --I'm not 100% convinced myself yet. Hence
my lack of good answer for them.

--merv

Iain Strachan wrote:

>
>
> On 5/23/06, *Michael Roberts* <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk
> <mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>> wrote:
>
>
> It does make me wonder if this lack of ethical concern spills
> over into
> other areas as well. I have often noted how much certain YEC
> activists lack
> love.
>
>
> Michael,
>
> I agree wholeheartedly with what you say here, especially having
> witnessed some of the abusive tirades that Jonathan Sarfati made on
> TheologyWeb (I wrote to AiG who confirmed that "Socrates" is indeed
> Sarfati).
>
> But it also has to be said that certain of the comments made by
> certain members of this list towards creationists have also been
> distinctly lacking in love (not as bad as Sarfati - but on occasion
> not far off). In the past, I have several times been prompted to
> point out John 13:34-35, but such posts of mine have always been ignored.
>
> Iain
Received on Tue May 23 08:00:44 2006