At 03:01 PM 10/02/02 -0500, Walter Hicks wrote:
>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?
"Most of us" only say: "People, you are reading Gen.1-11 as a scientific,
20th century report. It is not. It is God telling people of 40 centuries
ago, that He made the heavens and the earth. Talking in 20th century
language language to them would not have made sense at all. They needed to
know that we have a faithful God, who has made us and our world, and will
take care of us."
People 20 centuries from now will not understand the discussion we have
now, but they will be able to read Gen 1 yet, knowing it is not a
>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.
You do not have to say "no spirit" to know that we live in a 3 dimensional
world, but I have aan idea thaat you are talking about other dimensions
than I do.
>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.
In answering this as it should be answered we enter into philosophy, ethics
and so on, which is not the place here. Shortly, others say the same by
stating that YEC "scientists" are chasing people away from Christianity. I
have seen that too, and I still have to repeat time and again that Gen.
1-11 is not a history-, not a science-book, but simple God telling us that
He made everything, and that the world has a long history of not wanting to
listen to Him. He did not use 20th century language, nor did He use first
century language. Doing that, people would not have understood Him, but
partly in poetic language God said, that we belong to Him, and must listen
to Him speaking to every century.
>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
>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.
Jan de K.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 10:12:21 EST