Re: Glenn makes front page of AiG today

From: george murphy (
Date: Sun Feb 10 2002 - 17:53:42 EST

  • Next message: "Re: Glenn makes front page of AiG today"

    Walter Hicks wrote:

    > george murphy wrote:
    > >
    > > John W Burgeson wrote:
    > >
    > > > Glenn wrote: "Burgy, from Allen's point of view that is exactly the
    > > > choice. That is what
    > > > YEC leaders teach. If evolution is true, then there is no God. And so,
    > > > they set their followers up to become atheists when they learn about
    > > > science. The YECs would be absolutely amazed at how many former YECs
    > > > become atheists. Indeed, I think it is the quickest path to atheism."
    > > >
    > > > Yeah. I know. We are singing from the same page of the hymnbook here,
    > > > Glenn. It is sad. Still -- based on what I see, they are winning the
    > > > hearts and minds(?) of the multitudes. And I see no way that tide is
    > > > going to be turned, at least not in my lifetime.
    > > >
    > > > But, as Edmund Burke observed, "Just because only a little can be done,
    > > > it does not excuse one from doing what he can." (paraphrased), we must
    > > > keep on keeping on in the gallant battle. Fundamentalism is only 90 years
    > > > old, it has a good way to go before it dies. That it will die, I have
    > > > little doubt. And, as Allen well knows, both you and I, along with many
    > > > here, are committed to killing it just a little bit sooner by our
    > > > arguments and testimonies.
    > >
    > > Whether or not Christian fundamentalism will eventually die is to
    > > large a topic to be taken on here. But as far as issues concerning creation,
    > > evolution, human origins &c are concerned -
    > > The fundamentalist approach to these topics will continue to thrive
    > > as long as a concordist understanding of early Genesis seems to be the only
    > > Christian alternative. That understand confirms the basic assumption of YEC,
    > > that Genesis can be true only if it is accurate historical narrative.
    > > Glenn & I have argued about this over & over here in the past & I'm
    > > not trying to renew that exchange now, but I do want to keep people aware of
    > > at least the problematic character of concordist interpretations.


    > IMHO the current approach being taken will never succeed in convincing a
    > YEC to believe in evolution and remain Christian. In fact, in will have
    > the opposite effect of converting YECs to atheism as indicated by
    > Burgy's own words.
    > The problem is that many well known scientists publish works that claim
    > that science has proven the lack of need for religion. Thus, they say
    > that science is opposed to religion (especially in the area of
    > evolution). Now are we choosing a strategy that attempts to prove that
    > evolution is correct and that it does indeed conflict with the Bible?
    > How can that ever be considered to be a winning position?
    > The real issue is that those scientists who espouse this point of view
    > are quite incorrect. We do not need God to explain origins any more than
    > we need God to explain thunder and lightening. The issues are spiritual,
    > not physical. I went to a school which has "mens at manus et spiritus"
    > as its motto. I then went to a university whose motto is "mens et
    > manus". Indeed, scientists who espouse the no-spirit viewpoint are
    > merely 3 dimensional people living in a 2 dimensional world. They do not
    > see spirituality as anything other than the social result of evolution.
    > In a recent issue of the mensa bulletin, there was an article called
    > Atheism 101. In it, the author proclaimed his morality by saying that he
    > was not stupid and did not want to go jail. That's is a nice, well
    > defined limit for an atheist. There is no "logical" or "scientific"
    > reason for morality other than fear of being caught.
    > I believe that you attack the wrong enemy. Our fellow Christians,
    > uninformed or not, are where our enemies lie. I know that George says
    > "We should clean our own house first". But, as scientists, science IS
    > our own house and we should be attacking the publications of Dawkins,
    > etc. on their scientific merits and their incorrect conclusions about
    > religion.
    > Converting YECs into atheists hardly seems like a useful effort.
    > If the view that science opposes religion prevails, then science will
    > surely go into ruin as the grass roots come to fear scince. People like
    > Dawkins should be held to task for the damage that they do to science.
    > It is people like him who cause the reaction of rebellion against
    > science and the resulting YEC theory. I seriously doubt that it is
    > "concordist interpretations" at the grass roots level.
    > And I still believe in both evolution and the Bible.

            It's not clear to me from what you've written here just what you're arguing
    with. What is "the current approach being taken" which "will never succeed in
    convincing a YEC to believe in evolution and remain Christian"? And who on this
    list has suggested "converting YECs into atheists"?

            What I have suggested is that people be convinced to
            a) take scientific evidence and theories seriously, and
            b) appreciate the variety of _true_ and _authoritative_ material in

            Of course the meta-scientific claims of Dawkins _et al_ should be opposed
    as well.



    George L. Murphy
    "The Science-Theology Interface"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 10 2002 - 17:53:07 EST