RE: Conflicts and confrontation

 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of mrb22667@kansas.net
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 11:27 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Conflicts and confrontation

I am still trying to develop good and sensitive answers to YEC concerns
about where 'evolutionary philosophy' will lead a person. Science aside, it
seems to me their concerns remain well-founded. I've heard of a person's
amazement at the 'order and provision' of creation inspiring them to seek
out faith or enhancing their existing faith. But have any of you, because
of your evolutionary beliefs, found your faith enhanced -- built up? I
think I remember some of the "Perspectives" Essays authored by many on this
list come closest to expressing a positive faith-evolution association. But
the fact seems to remain that for most TEs their faith 'tolerates' and
'accomodates' evolution at best -- is weakened and even destoryed by it at
worst. Numbers himself seems to be an unfortunate example of this. Until
Non-YECs are able to really address this concern and give it good answer, I
don't think YECs will be very sympathetic with the ASA cause, no matter how
scientifically compelling it is.

--merv
---------------------------

I believe these are some very valid questions, but the analysis cannot be
complete without taking into account a whole range of other questions.

1. You wrote, "Science aside, it seems to me their concerns remain
well-founded." Probably so. If we do set science completely aside, and
consider only theological interpretations, what is the most natural
interpretation? I would have to say that the YEC would be the most natural
reading of the Bible, considering that most Christians before the scientific
age believed in a young earth and global flood.

2. But can we put science aside, and can we accept theological "truth
claims" about physical things which are clearly contradictory to observable
physical evidence? Does "truth" exclude observable facts about the physical
realm? If so, this sounds similar (at least) to the claims of Christian
Science - the material world is illusory, the spiritual world is the only
thing that's real. If the Spirit of God is truth, then the pursuit of truth
about either the Bible or about the physical world cannot be divorced from
one another. Can a Christian knowingly teach/believe untruths, whether
about physical or spiritual things, in good conscience? How does teaching
untruth reflect on our Christian witness of the God of truth?

3. How do we know that what is presented as incontrovertible physical
evidence (for old earth, evolution, etc.) is really true? It would be easy
to claim that all scientific "evidences" that contradict our faith position
are simply misinterpreted. YECism does this, as well as those who still
believe the sun revolves around the earth (www.geocentricity.com). How much
evidence does it take before the accumulated data prove convincing, and
cause one to reevaluate one's theological or scientific position? Is it
intellectually honest to set aside all science except for those portions
which agree with one's chosen interpretation of the Bible?

4. Is a literal, young-earth view of scripture the best way to preserve
faith? This would of course be claimed by YEC's. But only if the faith is
accepted while ignoring most emprirical data of geology, astronomy, and many
other fields of science. Many have lost, or almost lost, their faith by
trying to cling to a religious theory after the data had long convinced them
that it wasn't credible. By this measure, YECism does not enhance faith, it
destroys faith if it causes people to reject the truth (i.e. either cause
them to reject the truth of Christianity, or cause them to reject the truth
of science and thus reduce the basis of their faith to a theological theory
which is not grounded in solid evidence). The preaching of the cross is not
rooted merely in a theoretical doctrine of resurrection of the dead, but in
the eyewitness, physical evidence of a risen Savior. So physical evidence
does matter.

5. Is a belief that the earth is old detrimental to faith? Perhaps, if one
has been fully indoctrinated with the idea that the only interpretation of
Genesis 1 is 24-hour, literal days. A study of the text reveals problems
with this view, which doesn't prove the literal day view is wrong, but does
show there are valid alternative interpretations. Once aware of these
alternative interpretations, there is nothing about believing in an old
earth that is detrimental to faith in Christ. What if the Bible said that
trees clap their hands? Do we have to accept this as a literal, ontological
fact, despite obvious evidence to the contrary; or would believing an
alternate, non-literal interpretation be more conducive to both faith and
good science?

6. Does believing that the earth is old enhance one's faith? The question
is not just a simple yes or no. On one hand, believing the universe is 14.6
billion years old doesn't particularly give me stronger faith in God or
appreciation for his work (possibly, in helping illustrate how marvelous is
his work through the physical laws He has created, and illustrating how
timeless He is, giving a glimpse at the eternity that He existed prior to
the origin of this universe). However, in another sense, if there are only
two alternatives: (1) rejecting a young-earth faith which clearly
contradicts the evidence, or (2) accepting an old-earth view and retaining
faith in God, then I'd say the answer is, yes an old-earth view can certain
enhance faith.

7. Next, the previous two questions (returning to your subject) can be asked
about biological evolution. Is this scientific view detrimental to faith in
God (or as YEC would put it, equivalent to "atheism")? Can incorporating
evolution into one's belief system enhance faith? Even though I am not
comfortable with accepting total macroevolution, those who are more familiar
with the biological sciences would probably answer in a similar fashion to
my #5 and #6 above. Yes, it does enhance their faith by allowing them to
embrace spiritual and temporal truth shown through appropriate spiritual and
temporal evidence (Heb 11:1).

8. Is it right to demonize other Christians, calling them "athiests" because
they happen to accept what they find to be incontrovertible physical
evidences for an old earth, non-global flood, and evolution? I think that
developing "sensitive answers" as you say is important for the lay member,
but will not have any effect on YEC proponents. Their rhetoric about "where
'evolutionary philosophy' will lead" is done in total isolation from, and
with a great disrespect for, the large body of Christians who have retained
their faith in Christ without accepting YECism. Is this sort of rhetoric,
which is supposedly promoting the "truth of Christ", really in harmony with
the spirit of Christ? The same question could of course be asked of some
anti-YECism rhetoric.

Jon Tandy
Received on Fri Jun 2 07:43:38 2006