Re: [asa] Two questions...

Doug:

I think this non-concordist YEC position is closest to mine.
I have always been uncomfortable with Ross' (RTB) position, sort
of like a science-groupie. And although most of my
evangelical friends are close to a concordist YEC position, I have
always attempted to point out the weakness, and sometimes naivete, of
some of their arguments. It should be noted, however, that some who
are very serious about this task are significantly sophisticated
(e.g., John Baumgardner).

However, my concerns have always been more theological (I'm not wholly
comfortable with that word), let's say Christological, than with any
form of concordism.

I am persuaded that Christian faith must always remain in tension with
the world. Hence, any fully successful concordism might represent an
attempt to tear down the wall of faith. On the other hand, the occurrence
of certain historical events are necessary (but not sufficient) for
Christian faith, as such it is evidential, and subject to attack on those
grounds. For this reason I am likewise uncomfortable with any form of
Bultmannian groundless Christianity. Scripture is all we've got.

Like most practitioners of science, I began as a realist. In the twenty or
so years that I've been studying the philosophy of science, I have increasingly
adopted the "received" view, the anti-realist or instrumentalist views of
the vast majority of philosophers, finding Heidegger's the most complex, and
perhaps compelling.

For this reason my non-concordist YEC position is not troubling so much for me.
What troubles me is how it troubles others, and how in a day where science has
replaced philosophy and theology as the arbiters of what is reasonable and true,
they shall faire.

bill powers
White, SD

On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 22:09:24 -0600, Douglas Hayworth <haythere.doug@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 8:40 PM, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> wrote:
> were. They also ignore the fact that the moon is a light as much as the
>> sun is, so it cannot merely reflect sunlight. The change in meaning is
> so
>> familiar that Hayworth does not recognize it as a change.
>
>
> I think you've understood exactly the opposite of what I intended to
> convey. You are describing concordist versions of YEC (i.e., examples
> of trying to make the biblical descriptions make sense
> scientifically). What I said was that straightforward YECs (by which I
> meant those unadulterated YECs who simply believe in 6-day creation on
> biblical grounds only, and don't care that the scientific evidence
> doesn't support it -- perhaps appealing to the appearance of age) are
> internally consistent theologically. I realize that the vast majority
> of passionate YECs are in fact extremely concordist, too. Sorry if
> that distinction was not clear in my original comment. My point was
> that it is concordism that is the problem (not specifically whether it
> is of an OEC or YEC variety). There is a version of YEC that doesn't
> require concordism (i.e., appearance of age YEC), but there is not to
> my knowledge any version of OEC that does not depend heavily on
> concordism.
>
> Doug
>
> 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 Tue Feb 10 21:09:16 2009