NZ and Oz are sufficently different not to be lumped together by the northern
hemisphere antipodeans. It is as dangerous an error as calling a Canadian an
American, a Scot an Englishman, or a Netherlander Belgian :-)
I don't know many Maori personally but what I do know is that many Maori churches
tend to lean towards the very fundamentalist and pentecostal or charismatic end
of the spectrum. I suspect that YEC is taken as part of the package, along with
suits, ties, and the KJV. It is possible that as a enthic group they feel even
less ownership than usual in the scientific culture and are therefore even more
likely to dispense with scientific discoveries.
> Let's not kid ourselves that the YEC issue is purely a scientific or
> theological one. It has become interwoven with various social and political
> issues as various sides use it for political purposes. (BTW, I am not arguing
> for or against any particular social stand--although I do have my opinions!).
> This should not be surprising as the same was true in Darwin's day, as Jim
> Moore, John H. Brooke, and David Livingstone (among many other historians)
> have shown.
> We in the U.S. may be too close to the issue to see very clearly, but an
> example from the Antipodes may help. I'm told that in Australia and New
> Zealand there recently has been considerable support for YEC among the Maori.
> One cannot say that this is only a political choice (as a protest against
> the government), but surely there is a pre-existing sentiment which makes the
> reception of YEC and the quest for its promulgation in state schools so much
> easier for dissatisfied Maori. In the U.S. YEC can and is mixed up with
> other issues (generally very conservative ones); thus an attack on YEC is an
> attack on the Bible AND all the other social issues which have been woven
> together into what is presented as the one-and-only "Christian position".
> I'm not saying it's merely political; rather many issues are mixed together
> and manipulated for reasons other than, or in addition to, scientific or
> theological ones. To attack any part (such as the traditionally sensitive
> issue of YEC) is to attack all the interwoven threads that make life
> meaningful and interpretable for many Christians (i.e., an entire
> "worldview"). This goes a long way to explaining why "rational" discussion
> is so difficult. There is no such thing as a "view from nowhere"; we all
> evaluate information and make decisions from a particular setting of place,
> time, and circumstances. No individual decision is ever made completely
> divorced from many other issues.
> And at root there is an incredible theological shallowness in much of
> American Evangelicalism today. Mark Noll wrote of the "scandal of the
> Evangelical mind". It might also be called "the unbearable lightness of
> Karl V. Evans
> In a message dated 3/31/01 12:08:56 PM Mountain Standard Time,
> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> << The other day I noted that the young earth site, answersingenesis.org, is
> receiving a reported 10,000 visitors a day.
> I also note that the ASA web site has had about 80,000 visitors since
> Assuming the answersingenesis reported number is inflated by a factor of
> ten, and that the ASA site has been active for 3 years, that reduces to
> 80 /day for the ASA and 1,000/day for answersingenesis.
> I could not find a visitor count at icr.org, but surely they must be
> doing a comparable business.
> I surmise we are being outgunned by a factor of at least 20 to 1. Very
> likely a lot more.
> At the occasion of the NTSE conference in Austin, in February 1997, ICR
> put on a conference at a local Baptist church. There were 125 at the NTSE
> -- the church was overflowing with a reported (this is from memory) 3,000
> in attendance.
> I surmise that although the YEC view has been thoroughly falsified
> (unless one espouses the Gosse thesis), it is certainly not going away. I
> had had visions of that happening as the Internet revolution began -- but
> Gresham's law of $$ seems to apply even more so to rational discourse.
> We can debate endlessly the amount of the beating we are taking; is it
> "only" 20 to 1 or is it, perhaps, 100 to 1, but I think nobody here will
> deny that rational discussions on origins ARE an uninteresting backwater
> in current origins thinking in our country. We can also argue that this
> does not matter because the academic / intellectual world is not so
> polarized. Which may, or may not, be true.
> Or those of us who care can try to do something about the current sorry
> I don't have any magic bullets myself, but I have been discussing with
> Jack Haas at least one fairly modest action we can take (I speak here to
> ASA members) to work on the situation. That will be the subject of a post
> I will make later.
> In the meantime, comments anyone?
> Burgy (John Burgeson)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 01 2001 - 04:39:48 EDT