Please excuse that the YEC/OEC/MEC issue is not *hot* where I'm at, so this comment may seem somewhere out in the field.
When is 'evolution' rather simply about 'age of the earth'? It certainly does seem sometimes that persons at ASA defend evolution not only in natural sciences, but also in social sciences and humanities. The poisoning of theology (adapting it to science or vice versa) seems partly due to the reliance on process philosophy and its handmaiden, evolutionary theory. Perhaps distinguishing evolution as used in natural sciences from evolution used 'elsewhere' would be helpful.
"To which recent and evangelically recognizeable names can we point as evidence that embracing (or at least not rejecting) evolutionary thought doesn't always correlate to spiritual decline?" - Jack
It seems to me that about 95% of those who embrace evolutionary theory in America (of course this is a rough estimate based on looking at American 'science' from the outside) also provide energy to spiritual decline by paying no heed to spiritual language in their professional discourse (note: ASA discussion takes place outside of the laboratories and classrooms). What this means is not that natural scientists should use spiritual language in their naturalistic methodologies, but rather that those natural scientists who believe in spiritual things should be inclined to include an appropriate reference vocabulary in their professional teaching capacities. It may take a non-natural scientist, a philosopher, for example, to provide this, but then that would also help American society recover from the scientistic or technologistic tendencies it appears to be facing.
Hoping ASA will help get the rate right,
Gregory A.
Jack Haas <haas.john@comcast.net> wrote:
We are good at analysis, breast beating and expressions of need but
'where's the beef?' and what should it look like?
Some of you have felt the need for something of that sort for the age
question. We might call it /God Did it But When? /to go with the book
/God Did It But How?/ that we now
distribute.
What are your ideas?
Jack Haas
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* cmekve@aol.com
>
Frankly, the question is mainly theological not scientific. Until we can provide theologically adequate alternatives for YEC folks, they are not going to abandon their position on the basis of negative evidence alone. ... It just seems sometimes that we're fighting the battles of the 1920's incessantly. But perhaps it's just a corollary of the increasing shallowness of American evangelicalism -- as pointed out repeatedly by such notables as Mark Noll, D.G. Hart, David Wells, etc.
Karl V. Evans
---------------------------------
Now you can have a huge leap forward in email: get the new Yahoo! Mail.
Received on Wed May 24 10:43:33 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 24 2006 - 10:43:33 EDT