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

John, some interesting points, and I would like to continue this discussion. However I've just started reading the book "Perspectives on an Evolving Creation" and find myself going rather slow and taking lots of notes. Page 7 was quite interesting. I don't think you are going to sway me - as you have discovered, most of my position is based on theological and philosophical differences. But still, for me to better understand you and TE, this book deserves a good read. And I had to put Michael Denton's book "Nature's Destiny" aside to do so.

I'll be back. :)
JP

-----Original Message-----
From: John Walley [mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 9:35 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu; James Patterson
Cc: mark.whorton@nasa.gov
Subject: RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs - attn John

Just a few more comments on this thread...

>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?

I won't argue with you about CD anymore. But your acceptance of that makes you an anomaly among most RTB supporters. The difference between you and I and is the inerrancy issue as I just realized and mentioned in my previous email.

A friend of mine Mark Whorton who is also a former RTB apologist and Chapter President and also a former YEC wrote a book called "Peril in Paradise" where he details exactly what lies at the core of the YEC paradigm, and it is not as you would expect the age of the earth. Instead it is the nature of God because this in their mind is impugned if the earth is old and a "nature red in tooth and claw" was created before man fell. This was a real epiphany to me when I saw this unpacked and explained like that.

Likewise now I am suggesting we have the same difference here. We agree on CD and that God was involved at least indirectly but possibly also directly in the creation of man. Then what do we disgree on? Simply on the fact that you feel that for your interpretation of the Bible to be true, God had to be directly involved, striking the clock every hour instead of just winding it up, and that this is scientifically detectable. So I contend at the heart of the RTB argument, like Bernie suggested the other day, it is a defense of this inerrant interpretation of the Bible, not really CD or fiat creation of man.

>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.

On this I agree with you. Neo-Darwinian evolution does not explain the data. That is why I am a TE. But the role of "T" in TE and how and when He intervened is an unknown. I would like to see us come together on this as well and that is why I am persisting in this thread with you, because I think this interpretation of the Bible separates many Christians from each other and many seekers from God.

>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.

Agreed again. You have helped me put my finger on the exact "theological viewpoint" that I am disagreeing with and I have articulated it above. And if you care to discuss those I am happy to take that up with you.

>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?

Here you conflate TE with Neo-Darwinian E. Nothing could be further apart. Surely you must see this? I believe it was Steve who pointed this out to you before and said that you misrepresent the other side that you find fault with. I do think it is critical for you to survive on this list to see that TE is not the same as Darwinian E and everything you object to in Darwinism is explained by TE.

I think we have discussed the evidence and ironically we mostly agree on it. Our differences are theological.

Thanks

John

--- On Sat, 11/1/08, James Patterson <james000777@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> From: James Patterson <james000777@bellsouth.net>
> Subject: RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs - attn John
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Date: Saturday, November 1, 2008, 11:54 AM
> 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 Mon Nov 3 07:22:27 2008