Re: In defense of Paul Seely

Janice -

Thank you for posting this. After looking at Holding's bio to which Rich Blinne provided I was quite unimpressed with his qualifications. Having now seen a sample of his technique in discussion I'm equally unimpressed with that. So until I see some evidence to the contrary I think I can pretty much discount claims of anyone who appeals to Holding as an authority. Thanks for saving me some time.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Janice Matchett
  To: Ted Davis ; David Opderbeck ; Paul Seely ; George Murphy
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu ; jphold@earthlink.net
  Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 11:48 AM
  Subject: 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
   
  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 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 13:29:41 2006