Re: RATE Vol. II

Merv wrote:

> 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.
>

I see. Your point is that if YECs are paying our bills,
we can end up with a vested interest that might make us less
ready to embark on a crusade. We can have house payments
to make, a family to feed, etc. On the other hand, our typical
work situation is not one that could be jeopardized by taking a
stand against YEC. I really am I in a position to judge people
who are in such a situation.

The core issue should be the truth as best as we can understand
it as scientists, and that alone we are obliged to defend.
However, on the practical application of this concept, we should
not be quick to open our mouth to say what we will do.

Taking a stand in a church setting is not all that easy, however.
Being a highly active member can help a little,
and you can at least figure that if you are still a member,
you can encourage _some_ change or reform, but if you pick
up and leave, nothing will change. Sometimes, just that fact
that you serve, does help soften this sort of conflict. But
there are some people on this list who have been victims of
violent church politics, so when they want to get rid of you,
consider that they really can.

As to evolution:

If an old
earth is clearly what our observations consistently tell
us, we should admit it is so. Likewise, if the world we see
strongly suggests that evolution is the process, we must
yield to what is true, in as much as we can. So if accepting
an old earth means we eventually accept evolution, it seem
more like honest reflection can lead to even deeper honesty,
and that, to an even deeper pureness of heart. Is this a bad
thing? Should Christians refuse to submit to the highest levels
of integrity and reject standing for the best they can muster
in truth?

The important thing here is to look with our own eyes, and
touch with our own hands, and reason it through. The way
to convey this is another issue, but I think it is fair to say that
a consistent answer, while accepting the consequences, are part
of the package. And that is also a measure of our moral integrity
through our faith in Christ.

by Grace we proceed,
Wayne
Received on Tue May 23 11:00:06 2006