RE: [asa] Jonathan Wells essay

Hi George, you wrote:

3) It is rather odd for people who think that ideas about creation
are central to their Christian faith to not want to take the time to
look into evolutionary theory & the work of theologians who have dealt
with it in a positive way.

Okay, the camel's nose got under the tent so it was invited to dinner.
I'd hardly call that "positive." I would submit that the Genesis
chapters have been thoroughly misunderstood by both camps, by those who
tried to take it literally and by those who sought escape routes. If
either camp had bothered to cast a glance at the history of the ancient
Near East in conjunction with the creation account then that could have
had some positive results. Who bothered?

Dick Fischer

Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association

Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History

 <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org> www.genesisproclaimed.org

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:16 PM
To: Pattle Pun; American Scientific Affiliation; Keith Miller; Janice
Matchett
Subject: Re: [asa] Jonathan Wells essay

1) No, the definition of "Darwinism" and "Evolutionism" is not
"addressing the origin of life on earth." Darwinism is - if indeed the
term means anything & can be stated briefly - the idea that evolution
can be explained in terms of natural selection, & Evolutionism is the
idea that evolution can be made into a total metaphysics. OTOH there is
no incompatibility at all between Christian belief in creation and the
idea that the origin of life (or chemical evolution) can be explained
scientifically. A number of the church fathers understood Genesis 1 to
be speaking of a mediated creation of living things from the materials
of the world. Ernest Messenger's Evolution and Theology (a book which
is unfortunately very hard to find) deals with this in detail.

2) You are right that there is plenty of confusion among "creationists"
about the actual theological implications of biological evolution. The
writings of people like Wells function precisely to maintain that
confusion, which is why they are so reprehensible.

3) It is rather odd for people who think that ideas about creation are
central to their Christian faith to not want to take the time to look
into evolutionary theory & the work of theologians who have dealt with
it in a positive way. The latter category of course includes plenty of
professing Christians. Unfortunately most "creationists" restrict their
reading to those who share their ignorance.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----

From: Janice <mailto:janmatch@earthlink.net> Matchett

To: George Murphy <mailto:gmurphy@raex.com> ; Pattle
<mailto:Pattle.P.Pun@wheaton.edu> Pun ; American
<mailto:asa@calvin.edu> Scientific Affiliation ; Keith Miller
<mailto:kbmill@ksu.edu>

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 8:48 PM

Subject: Re: [asa] Jonathan Wells essay

At 08:24 PM 1/29/2007, George Murphy wrote:

& endorses a variety of creationism - the religious position that states
that belief in God is incompatible with acceptance of evolution.
Evolutionism & creationism agree in their primary implication & both are
wrong.

@@ But I would say that over 90% of "creationists" don't understand that
there are various theories of evolution and are actually thinking that
the "science of evolution" is addressing "the origin of life on earth"
---- the same as the definition of Darwinism and Evolutionism.

They see atheists in the forefront promoting "evolution" so it is a
logical conclusion for busy people who don't want to take the time to
look more deeply into things to think that the evolutionary theory that
is being pushed is incompatible with belief in God . They prefer to put
their trust in what professing Christians say about it because they
"know" that they can't trust the opinions of atheists / secular
humanists / secular progressives when it comes to the matter of
"origins".

~ Janice

----- Original Message -----

From: Janice <mailto:janmatch@earthlink.net> Matchett

To: Pattle <mailto:Pattle.P.Pun@wheaton.edu> Pun ; American Scientific
Affiliation <mailto:asa@calvin.edu> ; Keith Miller
<mailto:kbmill@ksu.edu>

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 6:53 PM

Subject: Re: [asa] Jonathan Wells essay

At 06:12 PM 1/29/2007, Pattle Pun wrote:

** Reply Requested When Convenient **

I agree with Jon Wells comments.

@ Wells is talking about Darwinism, and that is Evolutionism---the
philosophical position that states evolutionary theory is incompatible
with belief in God

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Youth%20Page/FishWars3.html

~ Janice ... Pope John Paul: "There are several theories of
evolution..."

>>> Keith Miller <kbmill@ksu.edu> 1/29/2007 2:31 PM >>>

Below is an essay by Jonathan Wells on Evolution Sunday. I post

without comment.

Keith

__________________________________

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/19634

As Jonathan Dudley pointed out in his recent column ("Evolution

Sunday not so benign," 1/24), hundreds of Christian churches across

America will celebrate Darwin's theory on Feb. 11.

Why will they do this? A little background is helpful here.

Evolution can mean many things. Broadly speaking, it means simply

change over time, something no sane person doubts. In biblical

interpretation, it can mean that God created the world over a long

period of time rather than in six 24-hour days. In biology, it can

mean minor changes within existing species, which we see happening

before our eyes.

But Darwin's theory claims much more * namely, that all living things

are descended from a common ancestor and that their present

differences are due to unguided natural processes such as random

variations and survival of the fittest. It is not evolution in

general, but Darwin's particular theory (Darwinism) that Evolution

Sunday celebrates. That's why it is timed to coincide with Charles

Darwin's birthday.

The idea originated with University of Wisconsin evolutionary

biologist Michael Zimmerman after a Wisconsin school board adopted

the following policy in 2004: "Students are expected to analyze,

review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses

and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific

evidence and information. Students shall be able to explain the

scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory. This

policy does not call for the teaching of Creationism or Intelligent

Design."

Zimmerman called the policy a decision "to deliberately embrace

scientific ignorance."

But experiments have consistently failed to support the hypothesis

that variations (including those produced by genetic mutation) and

selection (natural or artificial) can produce new species, organs and

body plans. And what may have once looked like solid evidence for

universal common ancestry (fossils, embryos and molecular

comparisons) is now plagued by growing inconsistencies. It is

actually the Darwinists who brush aside these awkward facts who

"embrace scientific ignorance."

Not only did Zimmerman oppose analyzing Darwinism's strengths and

weaknesses, but he also appealed to Christian churches for help. Why?

Polls have consistently shown that about 40 percent of Americans

believe God created the human beings in their present form a few

thousand years ago, while another 45 percent believe that humans

developed over millions of years from less advanced forms but that

God guided the process. Despite their differences, both of these

groups accept a central tenet of Christian theology: Human beings

were designed and created in the image of God.

Darwinism denies this.

Darwin himself wrote that he could see "no more design in the

variability of organic beings, and in the action of natural

selection, than in the course which the winds blow." Although he

could not "look at the universe as the result of blind chance,"

Darwin saw "no evidence of beneficent design, or indeed of design of

any kind, in the details." Thus, asserts Darwinist George Gaylord

Simpson, "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that

did not have him in mind. He was not planned."

Less than 15 percent of Americans accept this view. Yet Darwinists

depend heavily on American taxpayers for their financial support.

Enlisting Christian clergy to defend "science" or "evolution" is a

tactic used to perpetuate that support.

For example, Eugenie Scott directs a militantly pro-Darwin

organization euphemistically named the National Center for Science

Education. As an acknowledged humanist, Scott rejects the Christian

worldview, yet she wrote in 2002: "I have found that the most

effective allies for evolution are people of the faith community. One

clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school

board meeting any day!"

To reach skeptics of Darwinism, Scott recommends sugarcoating

evolution as change over time. Only after she gets people nodding in

agreement to the obvious fact that "the present is different from the

past" does Scott introduce them to "The Big Idea" * namely, Darwin's

theory. Organizers of Evolution Sunday use the same bait-and-switch.

The vast majority of Americans reject Darwinism for good reasons: It

doesn't fit the scientific evidence, and it contradicts a central

tenet of Christianity. Instead of using Evolution Sunday to celebrate

Darwin, churches should use the day to reaffirm the creatorship of

God and the value of good science * which includes studying the

strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory.

Jonathan Wells has a doctorate in religious studies from Yale and a

doctorate in molecular and cell biology from the University of

California, Berkeley. He is the author of "The Politically Incorrect

Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design."

______________________________________

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with

"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with

"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jan 30 10:03:51 2007