RE: How to discuss evolution with friends. WAs RE: YEC and loss of faith:

From: Glenn Morton (
Date: Tue Feb 19 2002 - 08:38:18 EST

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: Gen 1:1 and Concordism"

    Hi Shuan,

    You wrote:
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: []On
    >Behalf Of Shuan Rose
    >Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 5:47 PM
    Of a YEC friend,

    >She pressed a copy of the AiG book, Refuting Evolution, into my hand,
    >insisted that I read it, and absolutely refused to listen to
    >anything that I said!

    You answered the question below before you asked it.

    >Why have the YECs and the IDs been
    >so successful in getting the word out while deeper thinkers (like
    >you folks) are "hidden under a bushel?"


    for lots of creation/evolution information
    personal stories of struggle
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: []
    >Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 10:36 PM
    >Subject: Re: How to discuss evolution with friends. WAs RE: YEC and loss
    >of faith:
    >In a message dated 02/12/2002 8:14:06 AM Pacific Standard Time,
    > writes:
    ><< Hullo List,
    > In my opinion, the constant proprogation of YEC views as THE only true
    > interpretation of Genesis can lead to a loss of faith, as it almost did in
    > my life when I confronted the evidence for evolution. Evolution may not be
    > the perfect scientific explanation for the diversity and elaboration of
    > life, but it is better than OEC and incomparably better than YEC,
    >which has
    > been completely falsified scientifically.
    > The next question for me is how I explain this to my YEC friends.
    >I go to a
    > conservative evangelical church, and most folk there appear to be YEC. In
    > fact, the church puts out a tract attacking evolution as ungodly. When I
    > mentioned that I beleived in evolution, I was challenged on this.
    >One of my
    > friends even wants the church to bring Answers in Genesis(GROAN) to town
    > an evolution/creation debate!
    > My position is not helped by Dawkins & Provine, with their proof of
    > evolution = atheism formulas.
    > Its enough to make you wish for the simple life of an atheist!
    > Seriously though, I would like some guidance on how to deal with evolution
    > when the topic comes up with my YEC friends.
    > regards,
    > >>
    >You can take a peaceful approach by simply showing from Bernard Ramm and
    >others that committed Christians have various views of Science and
    >You can also explain that understanding evolution requires proper
    >have they studied paleontology? biology? genetics? etc. If not, you cannot
    >convince them of evolution any more than you could teach calculus to a
    >who only knows how to add and subtract, and you can tell them that.
    >If you need to defend yourself, You will get ideas from David Livingstone's
    >book, Darwin's Forgotten Defenders.
    >Note also, Derek Kidner, 1967. Genesis. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries,
    >IV Press. In discussing "let the earth [or sea] bring forth" in Gen. 1:11,
    >20, 24, he states "this language seems well suited to the hypothesis of
    >creation by evolution (as the present writer thinks)" but does not rule out
    >any other alternative.
    > Charles Hodge, the conservative Presbyterian theologian, who taught at Old
    >Princeton Seminary in the 19th century, and who is considered
    >said in "What is Darwinism" that evolution by chance is atheism (p156), but
    >did allow evolution, "If God made them it makes no difference so far as the
    >question of design is concerned how he made them; whether at once or by a
    >process of evolution." (p95) (cited in Noll and Livingstone ed - Baker
    >Also, A.A. Hodge and B.B. Warfield, who wrote THE book on Inerrancy which
    >Evangelicals have build upon, both accepted evolution. B. B. Warfield
    >himself a "Darwinian of the purest water," (cited in Carl F.H. Henry, God,
    >Revelation and Authority, Vol. VI, p. 193.)
    >Finally, Billy Graham said, "I don't think that there's any conflict at all
    >between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have
    >the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things
    >that they weren't meant to say, and I think we have made a mistake by
    >thinking that the Bible is a scientific book.
    >The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of redemption, and
    >course, I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the
    >universe. I believe he created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary
    >process and at a certain point he took this person or this being and made
    >a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man....
    >I personally believe that it's just as easy to accept the fact
    >that God took
    >some dust and blew on it and out came a man as it is to accept the
    >fact that
    >God breathed upon man and he became a living soul and it started with some
    >protoplasm and went right on up through the evolutionary process.
    >Either way
    >is by faith and whichever God did it makes no difference as to what man is
    >and man's relationship to God."
    >David Frost, Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man. (Colorado
    >Springs, Chariot Victor, 1997) pp. 72-74
    >Upon being shown this quote from Billy Graham, the theologian J. I. Packer,
    >who wrote a book in favor of biblical inerrancy, said, "Most excellent! My
    >sentiments exactly. Well said!" this was a personal communication to Denis
    >Lamoureux Feb 22, 00; but Packer has also said in print that he sees no
    >confluct between evolution and the Word of God. See J.I. Packer, God Has
    >Spoken, p. 170, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1988, and J.I. Packer, The
    >Evangelical Anglican Identity
    >Problem, p. 5. Oxford: Latimer House, 1978.
    >So, you can show that a believer in evolution is standing with some of the
    >greatest orthodox theologians and saints of all time. Based on that fact,
    >you then point out from I Cor and John that taking sides against
    >other godly
    >Christians divides the body of Christ and is a sin. It is a sin for them to
    >speak against evolution per se; it is only naturalism that is the
    >enemy; and
    >neither you nor Derek Kidner nor the Hodges nor BB. Warfield nor Billy
    >nor J.I Packer is a naturalist. If you want to really be aggressive, go for
    >conviction from the Holy Spirit: Say, It is a sin. Don't argue
    >any further.
    >Just proclaim and let God convict. Just keep saying, It is a sin.
    >Step 2 is to show the "I take the Bible in a straightforward way" folks,
    >they are just kidding themselves. That they reject the Bible whenever it
    >something that messes up the "god" to which they have made their ultimate
    >commitment, that is, "The Absolute Inerrancy of the Bible in matters of
    >science." But, that is lesson 2. I can only give you a preview here:
    >Here is an email I sent to a "true believer" who said a Christian must
    >interpret scientific data in subordination to Scripture because if one
    >subordinates Scripture to modern science, that is naturalism which is
    >to Christianity.
    ><<Eccl 1:5 says, "the sun rises and the sun sets" By taking the
    >verse out of
    >its historical context, one can rationalize it to mean that, it is just
    >speaking phenomenologically; but, it continues, "and hastening to
    >its place,
    >it rises there again." It clearly says the sun is moving around the earth.
    >Nowhere does the Bible say or infer that the earth is moving
    >rather than the
    >sun. Indeed, as Luther pointed out, the world (the earth upon which man
    >dwells) is fixed and cannot be moved (Psa 93:1; 96:10).
    >If "sound Biblical thinking" means that scientifically acquired data is
    >interpreted within the Biblical paradigm, then you must join Luther in
    >rejecting Copernicanism. If you do reject Copernicanism, then for you "the
    >bible is the basis for interpretation of the
    > data. It is read as it makes sense without the need to try to reinterpret
    > the Bible to fit the assumptions of mythological Naturalism." But, if you
    >accept Copernicanism, according to your espoused principle, you are
    >subscribing to naturalism.
    >So, is the sun moving around the earth as the Bible says, or not? Bible or
    >naturalism? Which do you choose?>>
    >He never answered me.
    >The problem they have is that ( I base this on 30 years of carefully
    >searching Scripture in the light of history): Whenever the Bible touches
    >science qua science, it is the science of the times. God, as a Father,
    >accommodated his revelation to the science of the times, which is not far
    >from what Calvin taught. So, their whole program of getting their science
    >from the Bible is bogus.
    >Stand tall. As you get more light, you will find that you have the long end
    >of the stick.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 19 2002 - 00:39:03 EST