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

John,

First, I still don't see WLC making the claim that others see - namely that
Christianity begat science. Arguing that Christianity was birthed by a
biblical worldview (which could include judaism, possibly even islam in the
picture) and then explaining that worldview as he did is something other.

Second, I can't even see the reasoning which amounts to 'Christianity could
not have played a major role in the development of modern science, because
today there are a lot of YECs'. I don't like the prominence of YEC beliefs
in some quarters either, but it just doesn't follow.

And third, what about people who accept the resurrection? The creation of
the universe by God ex nihilo? There are plenty of people - scientists, even
- who see those beliefs as 'magical thinking' and a rejection of science. Is
that also the case? Should WLC be taking them to task as well?

Personally, I think WLC is doing more than enough in his capacity as an
apologist and a philosopher on these issues, especially in light of his
recent articles on his own site. But at this point I'm starting to think the
preoccupation with YEC - where it's not enough to argue that the
interpretation is not necessary, much less is the rejection of evolution,
but that somehow it should be the most central topic for an apologist with a
major focus on atheist objections - is overdone.

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:22 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I have defended WLC here before and even below said his most of his recent
> comments that you relayed were greatly encouraging.
>
> But here is what is truly strained. You can't claim that Christianity begat
> science when today most of evangelical Christianity rejects science and opts
> for magical thinking instead. You just can't have it both ways. WLC should
> see this and be part of the solution by coming out against this deception
> instead of allowing it to perpuate.
>
> Thanks
>
> 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, 4:43 PM
> > 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 22:57:54 2008