Fw: Christian evolutionists condemned

dfsiemensjr@juno.com
Fri, 12 Nov 1999 11:58:43 -0700

Keith on 11 November 1999 wrote:

"Below is a copy of an essay published in the newsletter of the Creation
Science Association of Mid-America, and posted on their website. This
essay is written by Tom Willis . . .
>
> However, nowhere in God's Word can
>you find a hint of what some call Macro Evolution. There isn't one
>"Christian" evolutionist that can defend his stance for evolution on the
>basis of God's Word. They all do so on the basis of what they claim is
>science. It is my position that a "Christian" who believes in
"progressive
>creation" or "macro evolution" does so in spite of the evidence of the
>Bible, and the evidence of science."
>

May I suggest modifying this argument slightly?

However, nowhere in God's Word can
you find a hint of what some call the Copernican system. There isn't one
"Christian" YEC that can defend his stance for Copernicanism on the
basis of God's Word. They all do so on the basis of what they claim is
science. It is my position that a "Christian" who believes in a
heliocentric
system does so in spite of the evidence of the Bible.

I have somewhere in my files a pamphlet that attacks Copernicanism on a
biblical basis. Its author must have been, perhaps along with some
members of the Flat Earth Society, one of the few who will not be goats
at the judgment.

By the way, Ruth is to be condemned not only on the grounds given by
Willis, but on a multitude of other non-scriptural matters. For example,
on what verse does she base her adoption of integrals, vectors, materials
science, etc.? What, beyond the qualities of sand and rock for building
foundations, provides biblical data for engineering? As for the rest of
you, don't think you can escape condemnation. What is your scriptural
basis for wearing rayon, nylon, acetate, polyester, etc.?

And Keith, what is this obfuscation of love for the brethren? Isn't the
Christian way holding grudges, backbiting, judgmentalism, church fights
and splits, and the like? Or have you abandoned empiricism?

Dave