[asa] Re: Of motes and beams

Hi Merv,

Some weeks ago you wrote as follows:

Vernon, are you still there? What do you make of all this talk of "reaching out" to YECs? Since you seem to be a small minority among an otherwise anti-"YEC" crowd, it is impressive that you stick around. There is all too little cross-pollination between "birds of different feather" since we generally flock only to the groups we feel like-minded and comfortable with or choose to remain silent when we are not among "our own". Even so, are you willing to help us brainstorm about ways to help YECs move away from some of their more damaging habits? As desirable as a reciprocation of humility would be from the non-YEC crowd, I doubt that many think they have anything to gain from that cause. In fact most of us are too busy "emerging" from it or distancing ourselves from it (falling down that slippery slope of compromise you would say). But it has been tainted.

Here is my challenge to you, Vernon: are there "common ground factualities" that even many YECs would agree with today that serve as example pointers to the dangers of pitting rigid Bible interpretation against nature? For example here is one (admittedly beaten to death): geocentricism becomes conflated with scriptural authority. geocentricism is shown to be untrue. scriptural credibility takes a hit in the eyes of those who have insisted on strict concordance of that particular flavor. Why do most YECs refuse to recognize themselves in this? Another example: men have one less rib than women (I understand this still surfaces in recent times) it is easily shown by direct observation to be untrue. scriptural credibility suffers in the eyes of those who, through many levels of erroneous reasoning (or lack thereof), thought that such must be scripturally supported. Are there other obvious (beyond dispute) examples, perhaps more recent that anybody can add? Surely YECs can see the damage done when rigid interpretation is insisted upon as being equivalent with the Word of God. I'm not advocating the other extreme of complete non-rigidity of interpretation, though. Surely both extremes can be avoided. I think, Vernon, that you attribute that opposite extreme to the non-YEC crowd. And if such a fear were accurate, then I would agree that it is well-warranted.

You ask, "...are you willing to help us brainstorm about ways to help YECs move away from some of their more damaging habits?"

Merv, I'm happy to participate - but I have to say, the context you suggest is rather limiting; neither YEC nor TE have _all_ the answers. I suggest, therefore, we begin our debate by dedicating ourselves to the pursuit of _truth_; for in that alone, we honour the Lord.

To begin: you speak of "...the dangers of pitting rigid Bible interpretation against nature...". Stepping back a little, I suggest that to assume the supernatural plays no part in nature is both naive and unscriptural. The Apostle Paul enjoins us as Christians - scientists and others alike - to "Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil..." (Eph.6.11). I suggest this may have a direct bearing on our present discussion - but we shall see. And as for the examples you've quoted: geocentricity has never been formally refuted - indeed, the astronomer Fred Hoyle has been quoted as saying "We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance." (and this despite the evidence of the Foucault pendulum!)*; and regarding the 'missing rib': one has only to remind those who subscribe to this view that He who is capable of generating, from a single rib, a complete set of ribs for Eve must, logically, encounter little difficulty in restoring a complete set for Adam.

Just recently, I read again my copy of Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution. In it he exposes the fact that many of today's popular textbooks, for school and university, include material offered in support of evolution which is _manifestly untrue_. It appears that a number of eminent scientists have been aware of this situation for some time, but for reasons best known to themselves have withheld criticism. It would be a matter of some concern if one were to discover that practising Christians had been involved in such a shabby subterfuge.

A little while ago, you may remember, I offered a list of what must be considered the 'evil fruit' of Darwinism (http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200607/0232.html). That list may now be extended, as follows:

(7) Encourages the promotion of false 'proofs' of itself.

(8) Actively suppresses healthy debate concerning these 'proofs'.

(9) Is instrumental in depriving those opposed to it of their job prospects/research funding.

(10) Motivates its adherents to emasculate the Word of God.

All this again poses the crucial question, "Is it really possible that both Gospel and Creation by Evolution come from the same stable?!"

Merv, I will stop here, but look forward to your responses and hearing your criticisms of the YEC position.

Regards,

Vernon
www.otherbiblecode.com

* Hoyle, Sir F. 1975. Astronomy and Cosmology - A Modern Course, (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Co.), p.416.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Aug 27 19:18:29 2006