From: Walter Hicks (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Sep 25 2003 - 04:37:19 EDT
Sorry to be tardy in answering this post in
> 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
My personal opinion is that all of this has
absolutely nothing to do with salvation.
Salvation is through Jesus Christ. I personally do
not see any relationship between the
Gospel and YEC or Glenn Morton Theory or most of
what we discuss here on this list. It
is interesting as a scientist to appreciate God's
majesty in His creation and to
understand what little we can through science.
That is why I like to participate here.
However, to confuse this with something that is
really important in comparison to the
Gospel message, is a serious error in my
> 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.
My first introduction to Jesus Christ as a real
person was through a small "Nazarene"
church. There I met a number of rather
"fundamentalist" Christians of various beliefs.
They all considered themselves to blessed by the
Holy Spirit with "The Truth". The
arguments centered on being "saved" and being
"sanctified" and wearing makeup or
drinking wine. They all disagreed and they all
thought the Spirit was leading them to
the truth. (Age of earth never entered the
conversation). So what can I say about the
leading of the spirit? I think it is a personal
thing, not something that guides any one
individual to the universal truth of Biblical
> 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.
That God is the Creator, yes. That someone here
has figured out what that means
scientifically, horse poop! (That goes for OEC,
YEC, Glenn Morton, and all the other
theories, including yours)
> 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.
We all start with some sort of a bias. Some of us
more inclined than others. That is a
personality thing, not some conscious decision. I,
for example, am a strong "P" (meyers
briggs) type personality. I have a hard time
accepting any thing above (or below) the
50% level. Those who have a personality that
reaches positions easily, "J", are more
likely to formulate a "world view" and then defend
it vigorously. So we all make the
data fit that world view. That makes us "human"
-- not "inspired by the Holy Spirit".
> 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
The church that I joined requires that one look
upon the Bible as inspired by God for
guidance on faith and morals. If it was required
to accept the Bible as "infallible", I
would not have joined that church. My reason for
this is what people do with the concept
of "infallible". What that often means is that
they intend to take the Bible as a
science textbook. I reject that notion. If God
wanted the Bible to be a science
textbook, He would have so indicated by giving us
Maxwell's' Equations instead of saying
"and there was light".
> 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.'
Bias is Bias and we all have it. It is a sad thing
when dominates someone's Christian
beliefs, instead of the Gospel message.
> 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.
Morris presents himself as a scientist and writes
what he calls a science textbook. The
science is false -- demonstrably so by laboratory
experiments. If this is an example of
taking the Bible as one's reference for science,
the case has just been proven as to how
that leads one AWAY from an understanding of God's
universe -- rather than towards it.
> 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
I believe that _you_ believe that the flood was
"Global" but I cannot imagine why.
Those who wrote that portion of the Bible clearly
considered the "world" to be an area
local to them. Outside of geology, there are too
many other problems. Did Noah have
kangaroos and drop them off in Australia before
heading back to the northern hemisphere?
The whole notion of a global flood would require
some pretty obvious signs which I do
not see as existing. Signs of an ice age and other
things just don't fit at all. The
list can go on and on, Allen. It is your paradigm
and is based on your interpretation of
the Bible -- and you force the data to fit that
paradigm like anybody else would do.
You are not a YEC. You are not an OEC. You are
another person (inspired by the Holy
Spirit?) who has a different view than everyone
else -- just like everyone else on
this list has a different view than everyone else.
Some people are just more different
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <firstname.lastname@example.org>
In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 25 2003 - 04:37:55 EDT