RE: [asa] RE: Apologetics Conference 2008

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Bernie here about our apologetic leaders dodging the hard questions. This is the equivalent of the dishonesty of the atheists avoiding the hard issues of abiogenesis and trying to separate that from evolution.

Both Ravi and WLC and here in Atlanta and I am very familiar with both of their ministries. Ravi doesn't even take a stand on the age of the earth and ironically, his media program is called "Let My People Think". This is the downfall of classical philosophical apologetics, it is not sufficient if it doesn't take on the science.

I think as ambassadors of Christ and Truth, we have to expect more from our leaders than that.

John

--- On Mon, 11/10/08, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:

> From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [asa] RE: Apologetics Conference 2008
> To: "asa@calvin.edu" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Date: Monday, November 10, 2008, 6:06 PM
> Schwarzwald said:
> "I assume you'll take back the charge that WLC is
> a coward?"
>
> That's my personal opinion which I should maybe keep
> private. And that is only a 'coward' when it comes
> to talking about evolution. It came out of my frustration
> as one who really likes him and really listened to many of
> his teachings to try to understand his viewpoint, and coming
> to realize that he avoids evolution and even goes as far as
> to recommend others also avoiding it- dismissing it as
> irrelevant because of philosophical reasons that everything
> has to be started by God anyway.
>
> I don't believe him when he says he is agnostic. He
> obviously put a lot of thought into it by looking at his
> detailed response. I think it is entirely possible that he
> is a ministry leader who is concerned about not upsetting
> the status quo because it would diminish his ministry
> revenue income and standing in the Christian community if he
> were to outright accept biological evolution- just my guess
> and my opinion. Another guy who does the same thing for the
> same reason, I think, is Ravi Zacharias. They are both
> billing themselves as being on the front-lines of
> apologetics, yet seem to avoid the discussion of evolution
> like the plaque, and that really upsets me. Evolution is
> probably THE hottest apologetic topic when it comes to
> talking with atheists, and most Christians seem to be
> ignorant of it, because our leaders are afraid to speak
> about it. See if you can find a link with Ravi talking
> about biological evolution. I blame the scientific
> ignorance of the church masses on these kinds of national
> ministry leaders. Obviously they have their very strong
> points; no one's perfect I guess (present company
> excepted).
>
> ...Bernie
>
> ________________________________
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Schwarzwald
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 2:44 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] RE: Apologetics Conference 2008
>
> 1. Why aren't the reasons he gives good enough? If TE
> is true, if some form of ID is true, or if some form of
> progressive creationism or otherwise is true, he sees no
> biblical conflict or threat to his faith. So he has no
> theological pressure to commit - and since the whole debate
> is politically charged, plenty of reason to be cautious.
> 2. 'Accepts evolution' is loaded. The same book
> where he shows an acceptance of evolution is the same book
> where he's arguing that there is tremendous design
> apparent in evolution, along within other natural settings -
> he accepts evolution in a way markedly different from, say,
> Ken Miller. Besides, what's being appealed to are
> Denton's arguments - not Denton himself. If Darwin
> recanted and dismissed all his theories on his deathbed,
> would it be improper to refer to his earlier works if it was
> believed the points were persuasive?
>
> BTW - I assume you'll take back the charge that WLC is
> a coward? Since in this article and apparently his podcast
> (I have yet to listen to it), he not only discusses
> evolution, but argues that it's entirely compatible with
> Christianity, and doesn't even require interventions in
> order to be so. Rather speaks against the idea that he's
> afraid of talking about this subject, or against defending a
> 'naturally unfolding' biological world.
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Dehler, Bernie
> <bernie.dehler@intel.com<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks for that link. Two things:
>
>
>
> 1. He claims to be agnostic on the fact of evolution. I
> wonder why that is... I mean the real reason.
> 2. He appeals to Michael Denton for arguments against
> evolution. Just like my Theology teacher did. Then I found
> out, after finishing the class, Denton's book (Evolution
> in Crisis) was really old and now Denton accepts evolution!
> Why appeal to the old Denton when the new Denton no longer
> believes it ???
>
>
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From:
> asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>]
> On Behalf Of Schwarzwald
> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 10:50 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> Subject: Re: [asa] RE: Apologetics Conference 2008
>
>
>
> Funny timing in that regard. Just today WLC updated
> Reasonable Faith about this very topic.
>
> http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=q_and_a
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:35 AM, Dehler, Bernie
> <bernie.dehler@intel.com<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Looking at their agenda- looks like evolution is not a
> topic. From listening to William Lane Craig, I get the
> impression that he dodges the question of evolution at every
> opportunity. He's afraid to address it head-on in my
> experience. I've listened to a lot of his podcasts. I
> like him a lot- just think he is a coward in that respect...
> especially since he claims to be on the forefront of
> apologetics.
>
> My guess is he thinks that the Christian faithful isn't
> yet ready to accept evolution, and so he avoids it, by
> saying other philosophical points make the debate
> unimportant. (The evidence for a Creator means you don't
> have to accept a naturalistic godless universe... but what
> about evolution as God's method of design??? I
> don't think he'll address it.)
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>]
> On Behalf Of Alexanian, Moorad
> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 5:16 PM
> To: AmericanScientificAffiliation
> Subject: [asa] Apologetics Conference 2008
>
> http://apologeticsconference.com/
> <http://apologeticsconference.com/>
>
> November 20-22, 2008
> Smithfield, Rhode Island
>
>
> Inspirational Speakers:
>
> William Lane Craig
> Paul Copan
> Gary Habermas
> Craig Evans
> Darrell Bock
> Charles Quarles
> Brett Kunkle
> And Many More
> <http://apologeticsconference.com/speakers.html
> <http://apologeticsconference.com/speakers.html> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
> message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto: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 10 19:36:43 2008