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

There is some truth in what Bernie says here, and some of the rationale for
this I just posted in my previous post. However I stick to my guns on strict
acceptance of neoDarwinian evolution. RTB doesn't accept it not because of
theological reasons (although there are some, as I just posted) but because
of scientific reasons first and foremost. The theological reasons we (at
least I) could overcome, as TE's have done. However the scientific reasons
are still present.

JP

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 12:18 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (and now the flood)

Personally, I don't think the goal of Hugh Ross is to follow the truth
wherever it leads. I think his goal is to defend the Bible in the atmosphere
of an attack from science, and the YEC position is not viable, which leaves
him and his OEC interpretation. Therefore, he's trying to defend the Bible
by using as much science as possible. If he were to accept evolution, he'd
have to change his theological interpretation, and I think his theological
interpretation comes first.

Sometimes science demands a new theological interpretation, and he's
resisting that... probably for the sake of keeping the faith the same as it
always was (traditionalism), even in the face of modern science.

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Ted Davis
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 6:48 AM
To: James Patterson; asa@calvin.edu; john_walley@yahoo.com
Cc: bstuart@reasons.org
Subject: RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (and now the flood)

>>> John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> 10/31/2008 7:56 AM >>> writes:

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.

Ted comments:
This reflects Hugh Ross' personal approach to religious faith. I've heard
him speak several times, and every time I come away with the overwhelming
impression that he is a modern Cartesian--he requires absolute proof for
something before he will "believe" it. It's a highly unusual attitude for a
religious person, in my experience. I understand everything I just wrote,
but I don't understand it all.

He seems to strike a chord with many Christians, however, judging from the
size and influence of his ministry. IMO, however, he puts far too much
confidence in science's ability to generate indubitable propositions, and
he's set the bar for religious belief far too high. Whatever happened to
Polanyi's insight that we often need to commit to things that we can't be
sure about?

Ted

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 Mon Nov 3 07:09:52 2008