Re: An approach to Creation Science

Dick Fischer (dfischer@mnsinc.com)
Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:23:50 -0500

Paul Seely wrote:

>My approach is to expose creation science on its own grounds. That is, the
>YEC's claim to be following a straight forward interpretation of the Bible;
>but, in fact, at crucial points they take the Bible out of context.

Let me follow Paul with what I just posted on a YEC vs. OEC vs. TE listserv:

Andrew wrote:

>Yet, the scientists that do not hold to evolutionary dogma as ardently as
>Dawkins, very rarely criticise him - and never in the popular media. Neither
>do other scientists criticise the misrepresentation of the media in regard
>to the certainty of evolution.
>
>The ironic thing is that Dawkins is employed by Cambridge to further the
>public understanding of science. It seems that all he is doing is furthering
>their "misunderstanding".

Here I agree. But the problem, as I see it, is that we Christians have
lost all credibility. Essentially, we have abandoned the playing field,
and if God-defying, smooth-talking evolutionists fill the void, then we get
what we deserve. Who with scientific training would swallow an ark full of
dinosaurs, or a fossil sequence organized by flood waters, or no death
among the Trilobites until Adam tries a bite? Those of us who take our
Bibles seriously and literally get splattered with the same mud that's
intended for you guys who think scientists get their degrees out of Cracker
Jack boxes, and say so.

As a member of the American Scientific Affiliation, I get invited to attend
Bible and science conferences held all over the globe. Almost without
exception, the Christian speakers who have credentials in science come from
the liberal camp of Christian thought. Talk about taking Genesis
"literally," and they think you are off your rocker. As a fundamentalist
Christian, I get blasted by my liberal Christian brothers who like to
explain how Genesis was intended, not as history, but as allegory, or as a
mixture of fable and fancy, or it is simply Jewish tradition taken from the
Sumerians, or it was intended as a polemic against false gods, or it is
merely poetry, etc.

And why can't they accept a literal Genesis? Because "literal" has become
embedded in creation-science. By wrapping a literal interpretation with
anti-scientism you have caused those who are Christians, and respect the
findings of science, to reject a literal interpretation. And you bring
about rejection of the Bible altogether among the rest of the
scientifically-educated including Richard Dawkins. Since your science is
off the wall, they think your Bible is the source, and so they reject the
gospel of Jesus Christ coming from the same camp.

Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."