Re: [asa] A graduate student speaks out

Jim,
I think your posting is well said.

And as I was reading it I had the thought that it is true of both sides,
both extremes, in origins science. Supporting one's world view is what most
humans do.

I came here to talk to what I thought were an irenic group of scientists who
I believed were Christians. And I found instant hostility. Hostility does
not open minds, it closes them. The discussion here is not irenic. And it
is not characteristic of the scientists I know who recommended the ASA.
But, then again, a lot of the bickering seems to come from folks who are
non-ASA members. Why are they not ASA members? There is really only one
answer. It is because they decided they don't support the purpose of the
ASA, or cannot support the ASA statement of faith.

If you have two people, one who is YEC and the other person is at the other
extreme (not sure where that latter line is drawn) and both have signed the
statement of faith, then possibly there may be found some common ground
between them. They may learn from each other. But add in someone who is
beyond the bonds of trust and what do you have? What happens when someone
chimes in whose goal is to bludgeon the "unacceptable" peoples into
sawdust? To prove them wrong at all costs and shout them down? Isn't
the primary mode then polarization and alienation rather than understanding?

This is the ASA I have found.

On Jan 21, 2008 8:26 PM, Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net> wrote:

> In a recent study by The Barna Group, one criticism of Christians by
> "outsiders" (unchurched in the 16-29 age group) is that of being
> "sheltered". Quoting from the book, "UnChristian" by David Kinnaman and Gabe
> Lyons, this criticism is interpreted in part as, "Christians are thought of
> as ...out of touch with reality. ...do not respond to reality in
> appropriately complex ways, preferring simplistic solutions and answers.
> ..." To whatever extent this a legitimate response based on the most
> visible faces of Christianity (arguably the YEC-ish community being that
> most visible face), it is indeed a matter of simplification, accepting what
> is offered as correct, as well as being understood within the boundaries of
> the listener's level of interest in the topic and preconceptions. This would
> appear to comprise a much larger group than just those "engaged" individuals
> that I think are the subset being discussed here. So I would argue that
> within this larger simplicity-seeking group, there would be few overt
> espousers of "terminological inexactitudes" (a la Winston Churchill).
> Instead, most are simply stalwart defenders of their belief system, however
> underinformed it might be, because it works for them, is shared and
> rehearsed by their immediate community, and because belief systems are by
> nature tall-walled and moat-surrounded fortresses that we all defend
> vigorously whether we do so consciously or subconsciously.
>
> Along these lines, I would argue that with rare exceptions, even the
> "professionally promoting YEC" are neither delusional or dishonest. Their
> internal compass just (in our view) has some nearby magnetic influences that
> prevent it from pointing to true magnetic north. The evidence to the
> contrary can accumulate and build up in the awareness of these folks, but
> two things have to happen to cause a change of perspective such as this.
> First, the weight of contrary evidence and persuasion has to be truly
> immense to have the possibility of overcoming the inertia of the existing
> mindset (heartset). Second, time is usually required for this persuasion to
> take root and eventually take bloom. However, if there is also a consciously
> proactive defense against this intrustion, that penetration of persuasion
> can very effectively be fended off by something as simple as a relentless
> refreshing of the existing perspective. Only things like proof texts and
> other substantiations the fit with the existing system are afforded entry.
> All else is rejected.
>
> So, fitting into the latter (proactively defended) case, I would say that
> even the more prominent of the "professionally promoting YEC" (again with
> perhaps a few exceptions) could not legitimately be characterized as
> delusional or dishonest. They might be poorly informed because they resist
> absorbing better information, or incapable of the required degree of
> critical thought, or they may be "wish fullfilling". But the bottom line is
> that something heart-felt as critical must be ceded in order to make room
> for another perspective. As long as the consequences of that surrender are
> too great to contemplate, for whatever the reason, be it poor information,
> false logic or premise, or simple mantra repetition, the individuals
> holding those positions are simply incapable of surrender. These are what
> the books call simply, "True Believers".For them, the possibility of change
> in those parts of their belief systems is far over the horizon, out of view.
> As flawed as their belief systems may be (again, in our view), I resist
> interpreting this as delusional or dishonest. It is a matter of faith, and
> even in the category of a "test of faith". That represents near hopeless
> inertia in at least some cases.
>
> Finally, these individuals might in reality be hosting isolated areas of
> concern for contemplation. It is normal for there to exist such tensions
> while we are sorting out contradictions and assessing new ideas that don't
> quite "fit". Indeed, it is a necessary precursor for a change of mind. But
> such near violations of a typical YEC's belief system would be completely
> invisible to us, particularly if anyone in their community were in a
> position to register such considerations as "slippery slope" or even
> threatening with respect to the contextual community norms.
>
> Or so it seemeth to me. JimA [Friend of ASA]
>
>
>
> David Campbell wrote:
>
> Ok, I'm not defending YECism, but.... I'm really not comfortable with this kind of characterization. My impression is that most serious YECs are doing their best to support what they believe is a correct interpretation of scripture. I think we have to be very careful about calling that a "delusion," particularly as the "delusion" and "wish-fullfillment" memes are applied heartily against all of us theists by the new atheism. We all believe at least some things on the basis of scripture that are hard to reconcile. I believe the scriptural interpreation of my YEC brothers and sisters is unsustainable and that they are wrong, but I don't think most are deluded. Now, there are a few professional YECs whom I believe are just dishonest, but that's another matter. <
>
>
> I mean to identify those who are professionally promoting YEC or are
> generating new "scientific" arguments as being classifiable under the
> delusional or dishonest headings, as opposed to the average YEC who is
> simply accepting what he has heard. I would make that identification
> on the basis of the consistently rotten quality of the arguments. I
> think if I were out to deliberately make things up, I'd do a better
> job of making internally consistent arguments that matched known
> physical evidence.
>
> I'm not so concerned about how old one thinks the earth is. I am
> concerned that the scientific data be treated honestly. "I think the
> earth is young and don't really know anything about science" is a
> consistent position. "I think the earth is young even though the
> scientific data all point the other way" is also a consistent
> position. "There are scientific data that support a young earth" is
> untrue.
>
> While those on the list generally have issues with young earth
> interpretations of scripture, the real difficulties about honesty are
> associated with the efforts to have the appearance of scientific (or
> other, e.g. eisegesis of unrelated verses, misrepresentaitons of
> history, etc.) backing for one's claims.
>
> I have great difficulty in envisioning an honest explanation for clear
> misrepresentations. I'm not talking about out of context misuse of
> statements that sound somewhat amenable to a young earth view-one can
> genuinely believe that they are chinks in the vast left wing
> conspiracy that promotes evolution-but rather direct misrepresentation
> of what has been stated. For example, the Answers in Genesis
> arguments that should no longer be used page cited van Till et al.,
> Science Held Hostage, on moon dust but claimed that the argument was
> being withdrawn based on young earthers considering new evidence, when
> in reality it was old earthers pointing out the old evidence never
> supported the claim.
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jan 21 22:06:06 2008