I don't think that anybody intended to attribute one view or another to
lack of intelligence. Tim Ikeda mentioned, in connection with the satirical
"The Onion" that he thought that the "Funniest phrase" was "I don't accept
fundamental tenets of science and I vote." This prompted my comment about
"the revenge of the D student" as we, in a democracy, "get the government we
deserve" meaning that voters often base their choice of candidate on the
basis of very little knowledge. Joel then pointed out that "academics" may
also vote in such a way that the outcome may be "equally frightful."
Having said this, generally I agree with your comments.
From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com [mailto:Dawsonzhu@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday August 26, 2001 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: Response to Why YEC posting
Joel Bandstra wrote:
Given the voting tendencies of most academics, I suppose that the "Revenge
of the A student" may be equally frightful.
Actually, the one confirmed creationist I knew in
my days as a graduate student in physics was a very
good student. Indeed, he did very good work in
the area of study he chose (of course that was not
evolutionary theory). I tried to reason with him
that it didn't matter HOW God did it, rather the
important issue was to acknowledge THAT God did it.
He was at least reasonable enough to recognize that
I believe in God, and that I have chosen to follow
In any case, such frustrating matters as banning
the second law sound quite silly, but I suspect
that such folly would have little to do with the
intelligence or the grades that such people
obtained as students. All the creationists
I know all are very competent in their particular
area of expertise, and I'm sure I would be able
to count on them (in that regard).
Let me put it this way. It is not even a question
about being rational or irrational. It is a question
about the way of thinking.
In essence, the thinking in YEC starts from the
angle that the "H. Morris view of the scriptural
interpretation is the only correct view". (I
realize that there may be plenty of variation on
who is considered the great prophet of YEC thought,
but that is irrelevant to the discussion.) If
a scientist proposes a theory that doesn't
agree with the "H. Morris view of scriptural
interpretation" it MUST be wrong. Indeed,
it is even in a sense "rational" to assume
the opposing theory MUST be wrong because it
began from the premise that the "H. Morris
view of scriptural interpretation is the
only correct view".
Hence, I hedge that the fundamental problem is
the issue of how one defines "authority" in
scripture and *how* one shows respect to
that "authority". What does it mean to say
that "the Bible is God's Word"? What does it
mean to be "obedient" to the "Word of God"? In
what way does questioning the "Word of God" cross
into rebellion, and it what way does it illuminate
this "Word"? Questioning is _not_ evil, if the
heart of the disciple is to seek a deeper
understanding of his/her relationship with the Lord.
However, I also don't see any simple answers to
these questions, and there seem to be problems
with any position one assumes.
The Bible is a very important
resource for teaching and correcting me in my
Christian life, but God gave me a brain and
a mind to reason with, so that does not absolve
me from the _duty_ of thinking independently.
At some point, that includes examining my own
by Grace alone we proceed,
"A thought that is not independent is a thought
only half understood." Ludwig Wittgenstein.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 26 2001 - 14:50:50 EDT