Re: In defense of Paul Seely

At 01:15 PM 6/6/2006, Ted Davis wrote:

>Janice cites JP Holding himself, to deny Paul Seely's claim that
>Holding is a creationist (ie, a YEC). Here are my comments about
>this. [balance snipped]

@ Instead of responding to your comments myself, I decided to email
Mr. Holding yesterday to let him know that we were discussing him and
give him the opportunity to speak for himself on this matter. I
received a response from him just minutes ago, so will post his
comments on this thread now. I provided him with a direct link to
the thread - first to my post and then to yours (and also to the rest
of the ASA archives in case he has the time to follow up
later). Enjoy. ~ Janice :)

At 2:46 PM, 06/06/2006 Janice Matchett wrote to "James Patrick
Holding" <jphold@earthlink.net>

Greetings!

[Other salutations snipped]

Anyhow, I thought I'd give you a heads up on an exchange I had with
Paul Seely and a few others on the ASA list this morning. For your
convenience, I have copied and pasted what I wrote below, and
included the response to it (defending Seely) by Ted Davis.

Since your beliefs on the subject of YEC/OEC are being discussed, I
thought you may want to comment. I've included links to all the ASA
email archives available on the web in case you're interested in
reviewing them - *in your spare time*. :) FYI, I'm an OEC.

If you want to respond to anything here, I will be glad to post it
for you on the list if you like.

Either way, keep up the great work!

Best regards,
Janice Matchett
[City & State]

From: Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200606/0151.html

From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200606/0157.html

*
Mr. Holding's response:

From: "James Patrick Holding" <jphold@earthlink.net>
To: "Janice Matchett" <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 10:31:55 -0400

Howdy,

[Other salutations snipped]

>>>>Anyhow, I thought I'd give you a heads up on an exchange I had
with Paul Seely and a few others on the ASA list this morning. For
your convenience, I have copied and pasted what I wrote below, and
included the response to it (defending Seely) by Ted Davis. Since
your beliefs on the subject of YEC/OEC are being discussed, I thought
you may want to comment. I've included links to all the ASA email
archives available on the web in case you're interested in reviewing
them - *in your spare time*. :) FYI, I'm an OEC.

OK, my comments:

I can live with a YEC or an OEC but default to YEC for my referrals
when people ask me questions. So it's proper to say I am neutral on
the subject; I've never bothered to formulate a position outright
because to me, naturalistic evolution is so out of likelihood that it
doesn't matter to me how old the earth is. It could be 200 billion
years old and I don't think you'd get a cell out of it.

The folks at the creationist ministry use me for my exegetical
specialty. The most that can be said is that I am sympathetic with
YEC views, and agree with them on a fideistic basis as my default
position, but given the state of my knowledge you may as well try to
cite me for views on Japanese fiscal policy. I may be sympathetic
with devaluing the yen and say that we should do it, but that doesn't
mean I have a formal, defensible position on it.

>>>nonsense, IMO, but utter nonsense never stopped Rimmer from
saying things. And Hugh Ross likewise seems to do this from time to
time. The fact that Holding seems to be so worked up about this
suggests to me that he really does want the Bible to be fully
accurate scientifically, which further suggests that he is a YEC
(though perhaps like Rimmer and Ross he is not).

I'll thank the psychologist to keep his comments to himself. :-D

Anyone who wants to question my way of thinking had better reckon
with my personality profile:

<http://www.typelogic.com/intj.html>http://www.typelogic.com/intj.html

A very rare type, less than 1 percent of the population, and we're
often misunderstood by those who don't think the way we do. INTJs
have their ways of pigeonholing and categorizing knowledge. That's
what's at work here and what he doesn't understand. It's also why:

>>>>I begin by noting that Holding is explaining to people why he
does not write about evolution per se: namely, he don't know diddly
about it. I respect both the intellectual honesty and the spirit behind it.

I'm just being a natural INTJ. Nothing more.

>>> I strongly reject Holding's opinion that "the strongest
promoters of evolutionary theory could simply not reason their way
out of a paper bag," but that's beside the point.

I'm thinking Richard Dawkins mainly, and otherwise statements I have
seen by evolutionists promoting nonsense like "Mithra was a source
for Jesus". When I see this I know such people are all too willing to
speak definitively outside their knowledge, and I automatically
distrust them for being uncritical. Another example was Laurie
Godfrey's book popping for JEDP and other nonsense.

>>> My *sense* in reading Holding is that he does hold a YEC view
and simply does not want to defend his view scientifically.

Then his sense is in error. I'm just being myself.

>>.Holding also endorses TheologyWeb (I don't know whether or not
he's officially connected with it),

No. It's more like the relationship of an advertiser to a newspaper.

>>>>(5) Holding flatly denies that there are two creation accounts,
despite the radical break one finds in Hebrew between the two
accounts (yes, that's what they

Sorry, this just told me I'm dealing with a non-expert willing to
speak beyond his competence (I looked him up -- professor of the
history of science, eh? Sorry, I use Biblical scholars for my view).
I've given detailed arguments against this
<http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html>http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html
and they'd be the same if I was a foaming at the mouth
materialist-evolutionist. If he's not impressed he can show up at
TWeb and challenge me to a debate.

>>>> I do sense that Holding might perhaps be in this category, in
which case (IMO) he might well have a faith crisis if he looks
further into the details of the science.

If he's in the mood for a fun project, maybe he can explain to me 1)
how many mutational steps were involved in any given major transition
(eg, from scale to feather, if that's still an explanation these
days); 2) what "natural selection" advantage each step had that led
to its preservation. Every time I ask this of a full materialist all
I get is an extended "huh?" If I had a default position after a
debunking of YEC I'd be what I'd call an old-earth periodic special
creationist.

God bless,

JP
Received on Wed Jun 7 11:51:11 2006