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

I think this is an excellent debate point. My opinions on this topic:

Freedom of religion is a two-edged sword. This country was founded by
Christians for Christians, but the freedom to worship whomever is built in
at the highest levels. Our educational system is broken because of our
political system, and separation of church and state. Because of this, what
children are being taught in public school is atheism, moral relativism, and
multiculturalism. And this has been going on now for about 70 years. Look at
what it has done to our culture - I suggest William Bennett's "The Index of
Leading Cultural Indicators". The 2nd edition is still 10 years out of date,
but it is compelling evidence of what has come about. One of the most
telling statements in this book is fairly well known: "In 1940 the biggest
problems identified by teachers were chewing gum, noise, running in the
hall, cutting in line, etc. In 1990, the problems were drug and alcohol
abuse, pregnancy, suicide, rape, robbery, and assault."

And the root cause of this? In my opinion, it started with Darwin, and the
position than man was just an animal. And we are now collectively as a
nation and a world moving that way, because Darwinism tells us that's what
we are, so we might as well get used to it. The NAS and the NCSE stamp out
Christianity every chance they get. It's OK to talk about pagan beliefs
(multicultural) but watch out if you say you're a Christian.

I have no doubts that *some* of Darwin's ideas about evolution are true.
These are not denied by me, or RTB. I think TE to an extent is OK (after
all, I was one for years), but acceptance of Darwinian evolution en toto or
even sans abiogenesis simply provides too much support to the NAS, the NCSE,
atheism, and the push to remove God.

That "watch out if you say you're a Christian" part above is, I think,
providing the motivation to not look critically at neoDarwinism. If anything
is a "fact" in this country, it is that if a scientist criticizes Darwin or
evolution, s/he get's ostracized. If you are on a campus, working,
supporting your family as a scientist, then you have little lee-way in this
regard, and TE is your only outlet. How much do you push the "T" part at
work, though? RTB did not come out in support of Expelled...you can read
their statement on RTB's website. However you want to think about the movie
and about ID, the mindset and worldview of today's biologists are
unfortunately being shaped by the loudest and most vocal, such as Dawkins,
while those who are protecting their jobs and the support of their family
are left to discussions of how much and where God is involved in creative
evolution in list-serves.

I am lucky to live in a state (Louisiana) that is part of the Bible belt,
and lucky to be a Christian psychiatrist (we also have an Episcopal
priest/psychiatrist in the dept) who can talk about "spirituality" with his
patients. Plus, all the folks in charge of the hospital are Christians. My
good friend down the hall is a strong Catholic, and is about to be the
hospital administrator. His wife teaches Christian Ed at the private school
where my children attend.

So yes, there is a line between science and religion. My opinion is that
that line needs to be erased to get to a full understanding of either
Christianity or Science. That does not sit well with the "separation of
church and state". So be it.

JP

-----Original Message-----
From: John Walley [mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 6:57 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu; James Patterson
Cc: bstuart@reasons.org
Subject: RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (and now the flood)

James said:
>Yes, I believe there is use in making a doctrine out of them, in my
>opinion. One, the TCM agrees with the extant data better, and is more
>predictive (read the end of "Creation as Science"), and two; the Bible
>tells us that we have a personal God involved in our life. See above
>statement comparing TE to Deism.

Philosophically, I agree that the Creation as Science deductions are
rational and logical. I agree that there is sufficient evidence in nature
that aligns with the teachings of scripture to conclude that the God of the
Bible is the Creator of the universe and life.

However I stop short of calling this "science" because it isn't. The above
depends on subjective assumptions that cannot be proven as we define
science. We have to draw the line on what science is and isn't somewhere and
MN is as good a place as any in my opinion. Otherwise we would have our kids
subjected to the YEC equivalent fundamentalist teachings of the Muslims in
our schools about the miracles of the Koran.

I agree with RTB and ID on general principles if they wouldn't deny and spin
CD and they wouldn't try to overplay their hand and call faith science.

Thanks

John

P.S. Hi Bob!

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 3 07:04:53 2008