Re: Re: serious

From: Drsyme <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
Date: Wed Jan 07 2004 - 09:33:51 EST


It is not just philosophy though.  God tells us in his word to look to his creation to know who he is.  If he created the universe to appear old, when it is not, then he is contradicting himself. 

The YEC point is that there is no other reason to interpret the creation account as anything other than literal 6 day creation, except for external influences.  So, they conclude that anyone that has an old earth interpretaion is compromising their hermenutic with "enlightenment philosophy", i.e. putting man's knowledge over that of scripture.

My point is that IMO, they should accept that we can learn of God from studying general revelation, and that those of us that try to reconcile special and general revelation, are as commited to understanding scripture as they are.

------- Original Message --------
From: "wallyshoes"
To: "jack syme"
CC: "Don Winterstein" , "Jim Armstrong" , asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: serious
Date: 07/01/04



jack syme wrote:

> Walt wrote: "In this situation, the reasonable approach is to
> acknowledge that the other side may be right. Once this is done, I
> suggest that (with everyone accepting the otherís viewpoint), more
> YECs will become non-YECs than the reverse. " I have no problem with
> this sentiment. The problem is that those who support the YEC view
> dont do the same. They dont want to hear about any extrabiblical
> evidence about how the world is, and insist that their interpretation
> is the only acceptable one. As this view becomes soundly entrenched in
> home school, and christian education, instead of presenting a more
> balanced approach, more and more Christian young folk will have more
> YEC presuppositions to overcome.
>

I guess it all depends upon the YECs that you know. The ones that I know
are quite receptive to the possibility that there is more than one
acceptable viewpoint when they are presented it in this manner (but NOT
when it is presented as an argument). I quite simply tell my bothers and
sisters that I am a committed Christian but that I interpret the Bible
in a different fashion. Among other things, I think that it is possible
for God to have directed evolution as the means of creating mankind. and
that the days in Genesis may be longer than 24 hours. I tell them that
this makes the Bible and science quite consistent in my mind. So far
they they seem to accept that.

Regardless, two wrongs do not make a right. I insist that it is possible
(but unlikely) for the YEC view to be correct and modern science cannot
prove to the contrary. It is philosophy (i.e. "God would not lie in
nature"), not TODAY'S science, that discredits the YEC belief that
everything, (including scientific laws!) was created about 6000 years
ago. If we refuse to accept that, then why should YECs accept our
viewpoint? If I were in their position, I certainly would not. I would
instead consider scientists to be an arrogant lot who are not to be
trusted.

IMO

Walt


===================================
Walt Hicks

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 mail was sent by Cablespeed Webmail
Received on Wed Jan 7 09:34:59 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jan 07 2004 - 09:35:00 EST