Re: Questions to Allen Roy

From: allenroy (
Date: Mon Sep 22 2003 - 04:39:20 EDT

  • Next message: Don Winterstein: "Re: Van Till's Grand Canyon"

    Walter Hicks wrote:

    > Allen:
    > Glenn Morton wrote:
    > > Having spent 20+ years as a YEC, I can assure you that I have a pretty good
    > > understanding of their position. I published 30 items arguing for YEC. What
    > > I said above is fair because they take a single interpretation of scripture
    > > and assume that it is GOD's interpretation and expect everyone then to
    > > accept it. When you add the 'us vs. them' attitude they engender, you get a
    > > world view in which they believe they are the standard of truth and in which
    > > anyone who disagrees with their standard is a 'son of satan' (a term I have
    > > been called by them).
    > To me this is like condemning all italians after being mugged in an alley by one
    > some time in the past.

    ROFL! ;)

    > Several questions to Allen Roy:
    > Is this really the way that _YOU_ feel?

    There are probably some who feel that way and actively promote the "us vs them"
    cultic attitude. Since the issue of salvation is life or death, it is easy to
    become exclusive and dogmatic -- so much is at stake. However, one should never
    forget the ultimate "freedom of choice" each person has for or against acceptance of
    salvation that can never be and should never be coerced (not even by God). In fact,
    coercion of others is not possible for someone who truly loves and God is love.
    Although we wish to be like God, our "love" is sadly distorted and so stupid things

    Is there only one TRUE understanding of scripture? I believe so. Do I have that
    TRUE understanding and is everyone else wrong? I doubt that anyone could ever have
    a completely TRUE understanding of the whole Bible. Does that mean that any and all
    interpretations are equally valid? No. We are warned to stay away from false
    "christian" prophets and teachers. And that there will be (are?) delusions so
    strong that Christians will be deceived thinking that they know God, and yet he will
    tell them, "I never knew you." So, it all comes down to -- how can one learn and
    know actual Bible truth? How do you discern false doctrine from true doctrine? I
    believe that that answer lies in the Holy Spirit of truth who has been sent here to
    teach us all things. Our tutor in Biblical truth is, if we will let Him be, the
    very same person who inspired the Bible to be written in the first place. If we
    allow the Holy Spirit to teach us as Jesus taught the men on the road to Emmaus --
    "And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said
    in all the Scriptures concerning himself" -- then how can we not come to know
    truth? The Holy Spirit may make use of human teachers, but ultimately we are
    responsible for ourselves to check out the truth of Biblical topics from Genesis to
    Revelation under the Spirit's guidance.

    Do I have some truth? Yes, I think so. And having been proscribed to tell all the
    world --"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them ...and
    teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you" -- I have an obligation to
    tell the truth I have received it. But I do not have the responsibility to coerce
    anyone to believe what I say. I am, however, to "always be prepared to give an
    answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." And
    I believe that the teaching of Creation is integral to the gospel.

    Now with respect to the issues that are typically discussed here. What is the
    relationship of Bible truth and scientific empirical evidence? If, as apparently
    Glenn Morton does, you believe that empirical evidence is completely neutral and
    that no one should allow their personal or religious beliefs to color the evidence,
    then one should to just as he did -- leave the YEC camp. This is why I think that
    the discussion of the philosophical foundations of science that I posted from Del
    Ratszch (there are other philosophers who are saying the same thing, I used his
    paper because it was so concise and to the point.) is so extremely important. In
    essence, Ratszch is saying that there is no such thing as neutral empirical
    evidence. It is impossible, because our world view or paradigm (which is defined by
    our belief system) colors, or biases, the way we look at the natural world, collect
    data and interpret evidence. Therefore, our belief system influences the way we do
    and interpret science. Empirical data and evidence is thus biased not neutral.
    And, the person who is taught or believes that empirical data is neutral, adopts by
    default the belief systems of those who present their biased interpretation of
    empirical evidence as if it were neutral evidence. No one would want to admit this
    because it is a blow to the ego.

    A biblical based belief system can define our worldview, our paradigm. Our paradigm
    biases our science and our observed empirical evidence. And, being aware of the
    influence of biases in empirical evidence, allows one to reinterpret evidence that
    has been biased by this or that paradigm, to fit ones own paradigm. Does this mean
    that one's paradigm is sacrosanct and inflexible? No. It will change according to
    changes in the underlying belief system and according to other information.
    However, if one's belief system accepts certain 'truths' then there will be some
    things which cannot be compromised. And in evaluating challenges to those 'truths"
    one must ask, can a modification of what one believes to be truth be acceptable and
    not do irreparable damage to a holistic view of the teaching of the Bible? Do the
    challenges to cherished Bible truths come from a greater understanding of the Bible
    as guided by the Holy Spirit, or may they originate in the great controversy against

    It appears to me that many on this e-mail net accept modification to "truth"
    according to interpretations of empirical evidence. Perhaps unintentionally they
    adopt the world-view and belief systems of others that lead to challenges to and
    then modifications in 'truths'. On the other hand, if one recognizes that empirical
    data is indeed biased, then one can bias the same data within their own paradigm and
    avoid serious challenge to 'truths.'

    > Do you think that Glenn's assessment is correct -- or does he just know a narrow
    > subspace of YECs?
    > Are comments like this deserved in your opinion?
    > Is it just to make general statements about "them".

    I missed the whole controversy over Glenn's rejection of YEC. My entrance to the
    scene was apparently some years afterward. I didn't even know of him, until we
    butted heads here on the ASAnet and I then read some of his web site.

    I suspect that others with whom he was acquainted were quite shocked, perplexed and
    probably angry. You know, the typical reactions to loss. They very likely could
    not understand Glenn's apparent change to the acceptance of the neutrality of
    empirical data, when the Creation Research Society had been specifically formed to
    reinterpret biased empirical data within a creationary paradigm to begin with.

    I believe that this is the whole issue in a nut shell -- empirical data or evidence
    is or is not neutral. It seems to me that those in the ASA believe that empirical
    data is neutral. Those in CRS believe that empirical data is biased. And not just
    biased, but biased within an atheistic world view.

    > OTOH There is a lot of VooDoo science that is accepted by those who cannot judge
    > good science form bad. (Such as the Morris Laws of Thermodynamics.)

    It is obvious that Morris interprets evidence within his understanding of truth,
    i.e. that sin was the origin of entropy. I've been finding that challenges to this
    view point are getting common among YECs.

    And, just for the record, as some here already know, I am not a typical YEC. I
    believe that the Creation week involving the origin of the biosphere on this planet
    occurred only some 6000 years ago. However, the universe may well have been created
    ex nihilo long before that. But, this planet was "a water covered, void planet,
    wrapped in dark, formless clouds"(Gen 1:2, Job 38:9) until the Spirit of God came
    here those 6 millennia ago to begin the Creation week. I also believe that Noah's
    Flood was a global cataclysm that occurred some 4000 years ago and is responsible
    for the vast majority of the geologic record of sedimentary rock. The fossil record
    is not the record of evolution over millions of years. So, although I believe in an
    old universe, you can see that I have much more in common with the YEC school of

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 22 2003 - 04:39:36 EDT