Re: [asa] AIG -- Scientists! Give it up!

Vernon Jenkins wrote:

> Only by deliberately misconstruing the Lord's teaching does
> 'Christianity' produce evil fruit, whereas evolution - taken at
> face-value - _must_ (apart from possible minor exceptions such as you
> have indicated) generate evil fruit. The potential for this kind of
> thing is _inherent_ in evolution, but _completely absent_ from the
> Gospel of Love. The Inquisition and Crusades involved people who,
> misguidedly, supposed they were required to give God a helping hand.
>
It would be practically by definition that Christianity cannot produce
evil fruits -- at least not if its central claims are true. That is
what makes non-Christians bristle at this argument. It is meaningless
circular logic as an apologetic tool to bring people in who haven't
already become convinced on other grounds. But as an "in house" tool
for Christian brothers and sisters to discern and judge correctly among
themselves fruits are valuable. Jesus was telling the disciples how to
recognize false prophets when he gave this teaching in Matt. 7:16. You
may insist that the acceptance of evolution has produced much evil --
and I can't argue with that except to say it was picked up as a tool by
people who were already doing evil. Evolution is not a prophet or a
person at all. People who have enlisted it however, (I'm thinking of
Hitler), can be judged. And something makes me doubt that Hitler's
murderous ambitions would have been much thwarted had evolution not been
on his scene yet. Evil can find whatever it needs to feed on, if not
one thing, then another.

But let's discuss another present day fruit. A number of people here
(now former YECs) were badly shaken some time in the past by what they
perceived as a YEC stubborn determination to "stay the course" & "damn
the torpedoes" (or "facts" in this case). But the upshot (fruit, if
you will) of this is that the YEC faith becomes divorced from reality.
I.e. no possible observation of reality will deter them or cause them
to question any part of their docrine regarding that reality in
question. The FRUIT now becomes apparent as many reflective thinking
individuals suddenly are compelled to choose between "christianity" or
"reality as can be observed", and the exodus begins. Some leave the
faith altogether. Others fortunately find a faith community that keeps
its eyes open (e.g. many at ASA). Regarding those who have left the
faith entirely, what can the YECs say about those fruits? Dick's words
may be harsh -- but his point stands, does it not, Vernon?

> So it seems to me that fruits are important -- but maybe more as an
> in-house indicator?
>
> No, I believe there's far more to it than that, Merv. The following is
> what we might well refer to as
>
> *_"A Pilgrim's Paradox"_*
>
> (1) Jesus, 2nd Person of the Trinity, is also Creator (Jn.1:3)
>
> (2) The TE claim is that he performed (and continues to perform) his
> work of creation by a process of evolution over a great span of time
>
> (3) Following the Incarnation, he warns his followers of potential
> risks when allowing themselves to get drawn into belief in another
> doctrine; to protect themselves from harm, he suggests two tests that
> they should apply: (a) examine the fruit of that doctrine and, (b) on
> no account allow it to become your master
>
> (4) The essence of his teaching when on earth was, "Thou shalt love
> the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with
> all thy mind...and...Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
> (Mt.22:36-40) Clearly, these statutes are completely at odds with
> evolution's guiding principle, 'survival of the fittest'
>
Evolution claims no "guiding principles". Survival of the fittest is
not a mandate; it is just a naturalist's attempt to describe reality.
Accurately or not, no morals can be drawn from it. But the Bible
tells us how we are to respond to such "realities" however -- and
indeed that there is another larger encompassing reality not so easily
seen here in which the meek, the poor, and the downtrodden are actually
the blessed ones; exactly opposite the wisdom of the flesh. But
science is limited to the flesh. Those are the only realities that can
be observed in the domain of science.

> (5) It therefore appears that the TE claim requires us to conclude
> that we have a 'Jekyll and Hyde' Saviour! Clearly, a big problem! But,
> fortunately one that may be readily resolved by rejecting TE and
> accepting what the Lord tells us really happened - using the words
> 'good' and very good' to describe the pristine creation (Gn.1).
>
Actually you don't need evolution to encounter that problem.
Theologians do back flips to try to show how the O.T. God is the same
God as the N.T. one. (Of course we've so assimilated such theologizing
that it doesn't strike us as odd at all anymore and we forget how
striking the difference of perspective seems to a fresh eye.)
Evolution wasn't needed to provide us with that wrestling match, though
and rejecting TE resolves it not at all. Scriptures throw the
"problem" in our face quite well all on their own. God is sovereign.
But God also emptied himself and became obedient... and we scratch
our heads and make our stand.

--merv

Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are
honorable, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever
things are lovely, whatever things are of good report; if there is any
virtue, and if there is any praise, think about these things.
Philippians 4:8

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jul 30 20:30:21 2006