RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs - attn John

John wrote:

The problem is both sides want science to "prove" their positions for them
but...God is not going to honor that. He resisted the Pharisees provoking
Him to prove Himself to them and He has chosen likewise to not let Himself
be "proven" in nature. There are enough clues for the honest seekers and
"those that have eyes to see" but still no "proof" for you to use to
bludgeon the unbelievers into intellectual submission which is the faulty
assumption of ID and RTB.

JP replies:

I personally don't like the "P" word. Proof is hard to come by, except in
basic math. I am evidenced based. I hope we are not bludgeoning unbelievers
into intellectual submission, any of us. I don't really like the way you
said that, it betrays your anger, and this discussion should be about
science not your emotion with regard to RTB or ID. The current evidence for
the anthropic principle - for instance - stands at about 1 chance in 101100
for a universe occurring by chance that would support human life. You can
call that proof if you want, I just call it evidence for design, and the
fingerprint of God.

Whether we are RTB or TE or ID, I agree with Schwarzwald in that we should
be more vocal in the battle against atheism. It is better to have a single
loud voice than three separate independent voices, but at least three voices
from those who hold much of the same beliefs would be better than none.

John wrote:

I know by you finding your way here via RTB that you are an honest seeker of
truth and not a YEC but that is not what I am saying nor is it the issue at
hand. You and RTB assume that man had to be created by separate direct
intervention (your 3rd miracle) but that is only based on you reading that
into the Genesis account. There is no scientific evidence to support this
claim like a disruption of the DNA etc, and in fact there is evidence in the
DNA to suggest the opposite. This is where RTB abandons the high road of
"science" and unfortunately succumbs to dogma like YEC.

JP replies:

I agree with you that the DNA does not directly support evidence of direct
supernatural involvement of God in the creation of man. This isn't the
problem, John. The problem is the model. Which model is supported by the
evidence better? I submit to you that it is not TE. When you look at the
evidence en toto, the big picture, all of us agree that God is real, God is
involved, and God did it. RTB binds the revelation of God's word to the
revelation of God's world better than anyone else. THAT model is the best. I
don't care if you call it science or not, natural or not, discoverable or
not. God's word and God's world should agree. TE doesn't do that. ID doesn't
even care if it's a Christian God.

If you are a Christian, do you believe that the Bible is the true and
inerrant word of God? I have reviewed the so-called evidence of Bart Ehrman.
If there is ever an apostate, it is him. I know and understand that there
are still a few important "mistakes" in common versions of the Bible. I
think that Daniel Wallace's work on this is some of the best. I think that
these "Jesus Seminar" people (I don't call them Christians because they
aren't) are as much apostates as Ehrman. And if anyone reading this is
involved in that garbage, may God help you, because you are going to need it
when you meet your Maker! I am familiar with the various non-canonical texts
not in the Bible but associated with it - from Genesis to the end of the NT.
I still believe that the Bible is the Word of God, in that it is true in
what it touches (inerrant) and true in what it teaches (infallible). You
don't have to believe that to be a Christian, but if you don't it can
critically impact your life - look at what it did to Ehrman, who is now
agnostic. Given that, what we see in nature should agree with what we see in
the Bible. Do you believe that?

John wrote:

This is why you and RTB are defensive on this point and have only your
speculations to offer, just like YEC. Your position could only be true if
we spin the evidence and come up with some bizarre scenario that borders on
deception. All of this discredits Christianity in the eyes of the educated
public and it is only to justify a literal reading of the creation of man
which is not necessary.

JP replies:

It apparently is only deceptive to you, because you think it's bizarre,
spinning the evidence, etc. I do agree it is speculation, as anything is
that would relate to this topic. However, it does not discredit Christianity
to develop a model where God's word and God's world agree. RTB's model is
hardly a "literal" reading of Genesis, however it is quite necessary in my
opinion to integrate science with the word of God. The model that best
explains the data, AND is consistent with the word of God, is the model that
I will agree with, and support. If you can show me how TE does that, I will
quite happily switch (back) to TE, and do it without anger or resentment,
against TE or RTB. We are Christians.

John wrote:

Man does not have to be created by sudden, fiat miracle to be in the image
of God or for the Bible to be true.

JP replies:

I agree. But man *was* "created" with the involvement of God, supernatural
or otherwise, direct or indirect. In His image. We know the genetics say
that man is related to other primates. We don't see a direct link. So why
are we arguing about CD? It looks like we believe the same thing. However,
it appears to me that you don't like RTB because it frames things in the
context of the Bible, and Genesis. Is that it?

John wrote:

.or for the atheistic baggage of Darwnism to be false which is what I know
what your motivations are.

JP replies:

My motivation is to bring together Christians, not to separate them. Our
voice would be stronger and louder were this true. Atheism is false.
Neo-Darwinian evolution does not best explain the data.

John wrote:

Challenging CD and insisting on a 3rd miracle is the wrong battle to fight
and the wrong hill to die on because it is not consistent with the science.

JP replies:

I don't necessarily insist on a 3rd miracle. I know I've used that word, but
I have also stated that I don't see/know/understand/am confused about the
difference between God's natural and his supernatural involvement. However,
right back at you: insisting on natural mechanisms is not consistent with
God's word.

John wrote:

I can't show you "that the process from cyanobacteria to man occurred by
only the natural processes that God sat in motion with the creation of the
first life" but I don't see why or how that couldn't be the case or what the
objection would be to it.

James replies:

Because your model doesn't explain the data! Hello? Look at the examples I
have given you. I can give you more. Tell me why you insist on believing in
a model which does not explain the data except superficially.

John wrote:

I find it ironic that RTB sees the natural processes such as the laws of
physics that explain the formation of the universe as the "fingerprint of
God" but when it comes to life they insist on direct intervention and
special creation in order for God to get credit for it.

James replies:

That get's right down to the difference between hard science and biology,
which is anything but hard. Mathematical logical language on one side vs
biased interpretation of objective data which can be viewed in different
ways on the other side. God should get credit for all of it, don't you
think? Once again, if you look at ALL the evidence, the vast majority of it
is more consistent with RTB's model than with TE. Naturalistic evolutionary
explanations no not account for vast numbers of examples, some of which I
have listed, none of which you have addressed, and more of which I can add.
CD looks good for TE, but is not inconsistent with the TCM, and to insist
that RTB is wrong because of one piece of evidence you call a "smoking gun"
is, I think, searching for a reason to disagree with a theological viewpoint
because of other issues. We would be better served discussing those other
issues.

John wrote:

Simply, we agree on design and God being responsible for the creation of
life. Our differences boil down to to how and when we think He was involved.

James replies:

Agreed.

John wrote:

I contend this is an unknown, therefore the need to exercise restraint.

James replies:

OK, as long as this "restraint" doesn't restrain acceptance of God's word.

John wrote:

It is counterproductive to the cause to come up with scenarios that are
inconsistent with the evidence to defend God and support our cause.

James replies:

I agree it is counterproductive. So why do you insist on doing so? Don't you
see that is exactly what TE is doing? The neoDarwinian position states that
life evolved *only* by natural mechanisms from the first life that God
created. This is inconsistent with the evidence. I really think we need to
get around to discussing that evidence, don't we?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Nov 1 11:54:58 2008