From: Robert Schneider (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Mar 17 2003 - 03:58:22 EST
I've just finished an annotated essay entitled, "Does the Bible Teach
Science?", which will go on my soon to be posted "Science and Faith" web
site. When we are finally on line, I will send out a notice on this list
serv and will copy it to you.
One claim that Ken Ham makes which should always be challenged is the
heresy that the gospel of Jesus Christ rests on the foundation knowledge of
creation, by which of course he means young-earth creationism. I think that
this is an utter distortion of the message of the Bible. Ham and those who
think like him have, in my view, made an idol out of YEC. It is their god
and these idolaters are its zealous worshippers and evangelists.
If the interpretation of scientific data is theory-laden, the same is
true of Ham's interpretation of the Bible and of the bad science driven by
that interpretation that the YECs promote.
I've come to believe that the greatest difficulty in responding to YECs
like Morris and Ham and Gish is that there is no way in the world to
persuade them to see the Bible and the world in any other way than their
own: they have all the worst qualities of wrong-headed people. One has to
try to comprehend why so many people are attracted to their false gospel and
then speak to the uncertainties and fears that drive them, in their
ignorance of both science and the Bible, to accept it. I have come to value
the parable of the sower: we must broadcast the seed of truth widely,
confident that some of it will fall on fertile ground.
Grace and peace,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Collins" <email@example.com>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: asa-digest V1 #3214
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 05:20:01 -0500, asa-digest wrote:
> >Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:17:01 -0000
> >From: "Michael Roberts" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Subject: Re: test questions-old topic
> >Pray for us Brits Ken Ham is on tour this month and I dont know whether
> >anyone will turn him into a pork pie.
> We need it. He came to Brighton at the Weekend and gave 5 sessions
> co-hosted by two churches, one of which was mine.
> Oh dear. The word 'insidious' tends to spring to mind. Perhaps that's too
> he's probably sincere, but (IMO) mistaken, and will refuse to look
> anything because of his worldview and _a priori_ assumptions.
> The presentation was powerful, superb in its style but a mine of
> or at least of incomplete information which would lead people to erroneous
> conclusions. Not that I would completely dismiss out of hand absolutely
> he said - smoe things I feel I will need to look into. But I'm
sufficiently aware of the
> Creation/evolution debate to know that the young earth position is really
> tenable (much as I might like it to be otherwise - it would make things a
> if it were!)
> Perhaps the thing I objected to most was his forceful insistence that
> you accept literally the words of the Bible - and of Genesis 1 to 11 in
> you are undermining, or not accepting the authority of the scripture. I
> as a slight not only on myself, but on respected conservative theologians
> as J.I. Packer and F.F. Bruce and I'm sure there are many more who could
> I feel I really need to write something to my pastor, but I'm not sure yet
> approach I should use. A scientific approach would be of no use, because
> Ken said - and quite correctly - that interpretation of data is
theory-laden, and if
> I approach from this angle I expect it would merely be dismissed as "not
> through Bible glasses" (any of you who have seen this presentation will
> all about this, and the emphasis put upon it).
> The only approach I can think of that might be successful is to try to
> Ken's assumption that the literal interpretation is the only valid - or
the most valid -
> way to approach Genesis 1 to 11. I am thinking of drawing fairly heavily
> Blocher's book "In the Beginning" to achieve this. Also, Alan Hayward
> a useful section in his book "Creation and Evolution: The Facts and
> I would value the advice of others, though; and especially if any of you
> in this situation, I would love to hear from you and find out the
> have used, and how effective - or otherwise - they proved to be.
> I am not a scientist, theologian or philosopher myself - I have a basic
> education and have learned something about the other two subjects by
> reading but no formal training. And as a Christian of quite a few years'
> I have a fairly good knowledge of the Scriptures themselves (though not in
> original languages!)
> Sorry about the long post, but I had to do it now, while it's fresh in my
> to get it off my chest a bit, and also to make sure that I really do take
> of action, however limited, rather than just sit back passively and do
nothing at all.
> PS: a couple of thoughts have occurred to me; this may be useful to anyone
> who finds themself in my position as a result of this tour.
> Ken emphasized that whatever subject the Bible touches on - geology,
> anthropology, etc - it is completely reliable in every way. I think I will
point out in
> my letter that this is not so, and mention a couple of instances where
this is clearly
> not the case - the 'famous' verse in Kings from which pi=3, and the
> Hebrews which explains why Levi can collect the tithe: because when
> met Abraham, Levi was "still in the body of his ancestor." (And even if
this were in fact
> true, the logic employed seems to be a complete _non sequitur_, since if
> still in the body of his ancestor, it would follow that all his brothers
must have been
> as well, and so they also would already have paid the tenth through
> must make sure to remember to include this in my letter!
> Hoping for some feedback
> (A. Lurker).
> Give them an inch and they'll take a foot and, soon enough, you won't have
> a leg to stand on.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Mar 17 2003 - 07:54:58 EST