ICR presentation

Michael K. Thompson (thompm@rpi.edu)
Thu, 20 Mar 1997 16:18:32 -0800

I have the unfortunate circumstance of having a local group of ICR folks
in my area. Lately, they have been making the rounds to the different
campuses with the help of a campus group that will remain unnamed. Last
night I thought I would go to the RPI one to see what they were saying.
I am glad I went because a lot of my own students were there!

I had the chance to state that I was an evangelical who disagreed with
them which I think was helpful for at least those who were pressured by
the false dilemma. I also had the chance to ask some pointed questions
(mainly from astronomy since that is what I studied). I was quite
suprised that rather than taking the traditional modernist approach of
fighting me with "evidence". The speaker went for a more post-modern
approach by insulating his view from inquiry. At the end I asked him
how he knows his view is right over all of the other evangelical views
that exist. He simply said, "We don't." Rather than fighting for
"equal science" he was fighting for "equal story".

It seems to me that this post-modern version of creation science is more
dangerous than the first because there is no means to correction. Does
anyone have ideas as to how to respond here?

One way in which I saw the danger of this approach was via an
interaction with a seeker afterwards. I was trying to show that his
atheism needed a faith element as does Christianity. He saw his
"belief" as connected to facts, but my "faith" as insulated from all
discussion (esp based on what he just heard). I think I convinced him
otherwise, but it took over an hour.

I think this is another example of how dangerous this direction is. A
post-modern approach will surely in the end kill all scientific
discussion (not to mention theological discussion). When I pointed out
that I would have to throw away science in order to believe that the
laws of physics changed when Adam fell causing apparent age, he said I
wouldn't. But he never explained why that was so.

I also interacted with the speaker afterwards. In passing he said
something about how God wants us to avoid philosophy to which I
responded that God created philosophy and science and that it is good.
He thought about that one for a while. I can only hope it puts him on
another path.

Other exchanges happened but I will spare you. Any insight from your
interactions with YEC would be helpful.