RE: Conflicts and confrontation

Thanks for responding at length. And before I respond, I need to summarize an
acknowledgement that I must have accidentally sent only to Michael instead of
the whole list.

I am happy to stand corrected on my "factual" assumption that "most" TEs find
evolution spiritually detrimental. I shouldn't have stated it that way since
it might not be true, and in any case, as has been pointed out to me, is an
unfair generalization. But my impression was based in my own experiences and
readings. I think that considering the nations which have historically found
evolution convenient (even in their metaphysical abuse of it) to put down
religious influence (China, Soviet Union, WW2 Germany), and considering the
noisy presence of some scientists engaging in the same abuse, the attempt to
rectify this to the YEC mind must start with a significant liability. This is
why I ask to hear the many personal counter-examples. Thanks.

Quoting Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net>:

> 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.

It was the most natural reading before they had any reasons to think
otherwise. As soon as geology concluded (well before Darwin) the antiquity of
the earth, almost all theologians accepted this with nary an objection.
The "Young earth" part didn't become a big part of the movement until later in
the twentieth century.

>
> 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?
>

I agree that a healthy religious faith cannot be maintained in the face of
contradictory observations. All truth is God's truth. This is why the YEC is
so hard pressed to deny evidence, deny the veracity of those who present or
interpret it, etc. Ones like K. Wise who acknowledge the apparent
contradictory nature of the evidence have been exceptions to this. Most YECs
would agree with the claim that science ("True Science") cannot contradict the
Bible. Hence the movement to eradicate what must be the "false" evolutionary
science. I was simply toying with the idea that evolutionary philosophy (apart
from the involved science) could be judged on the merits of its "children".

"Wisdom is known by her children" -- Jesus' words from somewhere in Luke, I
think.

Sorry -- I should have read your whole response below. What I stated above
seems to be following your line of thoughts below.

> 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.

I wish YECs would take the pre-Galileo 'immoveable' earth to heart in a
parallel self-reflection to their current situation. It seemed like the
straight-forward interpretation of some passages at the time, but observation
eventually won the day, and now few YECs would defend that "straight-forward"
reading. I can't at the moment think of any examples the other way, in which
adherence to convictions eventually won the day over some apparent scientific
dogma or interpretation. But I am sure there are plenty of times to let one's
feathers remain unruffled by transient scientific fads.

>
> 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?

Some have been guilty of caricaturing the fundamentalist position by insisting
that they would have to take things like "clapping trees". Perhaps some do,
but most scholars who self-label themselves fundamentalist are quite willing to
accept the various categories of literature in the Bible (poetic, apocalyptic,
narrative...) -- they just disagree with what and how much should be lumped
into each category: Genesis 1 & 2 for example.

>
> 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.
>

I do try (and fail) to imagine billions of years of unobserved (by humans)
history passing. This is a source of awe for me.

> 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
>
It is education about that "large body of Christians" that is precisely what I
need, and maybe the ASA is a good place to start in that respect.

--merv
 
Received on Fri Jun 2 08:40:01 2006