My children became evolutionists before I did. They couldn't understand how
their old man could ignore so much evidence. They were right to wonder.
>Of course, I am sure your views are not looked at
>favorably but most who believe in a purely scientific approach to the
>question of origins.
When I was preparing Foundation, Fall and Flood for publication. I sent it
to 5 young-earth creationists and 5 people active in science AND in the
anticreation movement. Some of them were atheists. I wanted to get the most
severe criticism of my views so that I could correct any errors. I didn't
hear back from a single young-earth creationist. Those in science actively
helped me by correcting me and sending articles with supportive or
corrective information. What I have found is that those in science may not
accept my views as representing reality (and I don't yet have the confirming
evidence I would like to have) but they don't disagree with the evidence I
cite. I have had atheists tell me that I had the first plausible theory of
how to harmonize scripture with science that they have ever seen. I don't
get the hostility that you might expect from them. I get the hostility from
young-earth creationists far more often.
>>>I thought the question was that the wiring needed something more than the
>>>physical, the genes. I am confused.
>>The brain requires input from the environment. But that is physical also.
>That is the problem I see with evolutionary explanations. We will never know
>the answer but in the meantime we may be misleading people away from God.
So, are you suggesting that if an answer "leads away from God" that we are
to avoid talking about it? Isn't that suppression of the truth? God is a
big boy and since he already knows scientific truth, I imagine that He can
handle it. He probably wonders why we christians go to such extreme lengths
to avoid what we see with our eyes.
>ever an answer is found to the question of origins, which I don't think it
>will ever happen, most of us will be dead and many in their sins. What good
>is then the theory? If a surgeon general warning should be on any textbook,
>it should be on those that advocate that evolutionary theory explains the
>origin of man. Such ideas are more deadly than smoking, drinking, etc. Why
>then not a warning?
I would disagree with you here. What is very dangerous and what almost
turned me into an atheist was the fact that my fellow christians were NOT
telling me data that contradicted their own viewpoint. They also would never
provide answers to any question. They would either become silent, say
something so contrary to fact that it was laughable or would advocate
waiting until next century for the answer to a very simple quesiton. It was
what I call the great YETI search. We don't have an answer YET but we will
find one in the future.
The pull of evolution is that it can answer detailed observations. This is
precisely what Christian harmonizations have failed to provide. No wonder
my friend John McKiness has given up on concordism.
>I ask you who is more susceptible to condone euthanasia, abortion, assisted
>suicide, sterilization of the mentally weak, eugenics, doing away with the
>weak and old, etc., you or your boss? Atheism is very comfortable with an
>evolutionary theory. A Christian ought not to believe such a theory [note
>the word 'believe'], or else handle it with extreme care. We have agreed
>that a sinful person will find any source to justify his/her views of
>others. You are pointing to the obvious danger of just looking to parts of
>the Bible and not the whole. And let us not forget that the word "Christian"
>is very misused. My dilemma is, what does the whole Bible, not parts of it,
>have to say about our origin?
It says God created us. It doesn't say how. You can't find a verse where it
says "animals reproduce animals after their kind." with animal as the
subject and object of the sentence. I am still waiting for someone to
provide Biblical proof for an antievolutionary stand.
Foundation, Fall and Flood