Re: [asa] More WLC on Evolution, ID, and Genesis

John,

Yes, I've heard of YEC. The fact that some people think it 'defines
Christianity' is precisely what is strained.

I reject YEC, and it was never part of my beliefs. But this ever-present,
frantic reaction to YEC as if it's the highest intellectual sin is nothing
short of ridiculous. Believe it or not, a person can be wrong - even
obviously wrong - about one given scientific belief or another, yet their
belief system as a whole would not necessarily be 'superstitious and
magic-laden'. In fact, it could be downright reasonable and rational.

Further, denial? That's so out of nowhere I'm not sure how to respond to it.
He's outright arguing compatibility of Genesis with evolution. He's saying
he's undecided on ID as science. He says particularly that he sees no reason
to view the 'days' of Genesis as depicting literal days, and how the moment
that's realized the sense of evolution in the biblical view is apparent. But
he's not outright denouncing YECs as dangerous heretics, so I guess he's in
denial?

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:51 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > There's a modern tendency to portray Christianity as laden with
> > superstition and magic, a view which really strikes me as strained - so
> > WLC highlighting what he did is remarkable and useful.
>
> Why is this strained? Have you not ever heard of YEC? The defines
> Christianity to most people at least in America.
>
> So WLC highlighting this shows only that he is in denial about how
> counterproductive most of mainstream Christianity is to science now.
>
> John
>
>
>
> --- On Tue, 11/25/08, Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [asa] More WLC on Evolution, ID, and Genesis
> > To: asa@calvin.edu
> > Date: Tuesday, November 25, 2008, 12:09 PM
> > Heya Ted,
> >
> > Whether the greeks were doing 'genuine/real
> > science' to me seems like a
> > murkier area. As usual, it depends on what 'genuine
> > science' means, and the
> > concept seems to slide around quite often to the point
> > where it can mean
> > something as simple as 'developing technology'.
> > I'm not saying I disagree,
> > only that I think the questions ges murky, particularly
> > 'What exactly is
> > real science apart from modern science?'
> >
> > I will note, though, that even WLC isn't talking
> > broadly about genuine or
> > 'real' science, wherever those lines may be drawn,
> > but 'modern science'
> > (Which, I suppose, is described so specifically to
> > differentiate it from
> > less rigid prior areas.) WLC also seems to add detail to
> > what he means by a
> > biblical worldview, which I think is helpful here.
> >
> > Again, what really stands out to me (and what I think is
> > important to
> > accent) is just how reasonable, rational, and down-to-earth
> > this 'biblical
> > worldview' really is, even with regards to Genesis.
> > There's a modern
> > tendency to portray Christianity as laden with superstition
> > and magic, a
> > view which really strikes me as strained - so WLC
> > highlighting what he did
> > is remarkable and useful.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Ted Davis
> > <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Schwarzwald,
> > >
> > > I was picking up on this specific language:
> > "modern science was birthed by
> > > a biblical worldview," which to my ears sounds
> > like the claim that
> > > Christianity was the one main cause of modern science.
> > Perhaps I have read
> > > too much into this, but if the language said
> > "modern science arose in a
> > > Christian culture" I would fully agree.
> > >
> > > Often, I encounter the view that there was no genuine
> > science at all, prior
> > > to (say) 1500 or (less commonly) 1200 AD, that it took
> > Christianity to
> > > produce genuine science. That wasn't part of the
> > claim I responded to, but
> > > (as I say) I do find it said more than a little.
> > Stark pushes this, based
> > > partly on Stan Jaki and partly on his own misreading
> > of other sources (he
> > > seems to think this is a consensus, when it's a
> > tiny minority who think
> > > this). IMO, however, genuine science did exist in the
> > Greek and
> > > Hellenistic
> > > worlds. It wasn't widespread in time or space,
> > but it was real science,
> > > even if it didn't very closely resemble modern
> > science. Indeed, the
> > > impulse
> > > for the human mind to go out and conquer nature,
> > mentally if not
> > > technologically, is embedded within Greek philosophy;
> > you don't need
> > > Christian theism to believe that nature makes sense,
> > even though it very
> > > naturally flows from Christian theism that it should.
> > Hubris can do what
> > > theism encourages.
> > >
> > > Ted
> > >
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 25 16:44:17 2008