RE: YEC Destroying Faith

From: Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Fri Apr 16 2004 - 22:13:40 EDT

This is a reply to Michael Roberts and Rich Blaine and Douglas Barber.
By the way, Douglas is Gaellic for black water. I learned in Scotland
that Mortons are a sept of the Douglas clan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Roberts
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 12:41 PM
> To: Glenn Morton; 'William Hamilton'
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: YEC Destroying Faith
>
>
> Consider Paul's teaching on the resurrection in 1 Cor 15 vs
> 36. That means Paul is wrong as seeds don't die if they
> germinate and if they die they cant germinate. There are
> several things we can conclude from that; 1.

Once again, Michael, I would say this is a dead red herring. (It is duly
noted that you will disagree). I frankly find it more fundamentally
flawed that God can't seem to get the creation story correct than that
Paul used an allegory. There is no hint of an allegory in Genesis. To
claim that Genesis is true when it doesn't match the fossil order, the
events in creation (as currently interpreted) is epistemologically no
different than my leprechaun lighted lamp theory.

I would ask why God can't get the story of creation straight. Did he
forget what it was? Did he NOT create the universe and thus is in the
dark as much as us? Is he a false God? Is he unable to communicate
correctly a single thought to the human race if that thought can be
obervationally verified or refuted (once again, there I go doing that
either/or thinking again.)

***
Rich wrote:

>I regret that I inadvertantly posted Glenn's private e-mail and I wish
to personally apologize for that error. That error
>did confirm that we are truly scientists and engineers here. Namely, we
really need some sensitivity training. We cannot
>be unconcerned about how what we say gets heard. As such, Glenn and my
personal experience should be granted a good deal
>of weight. We know how we would have internalized the arguments when we
were YEC. We rightly rail against YECs who don't
>understand how we can be Christians and not YEC. As a result, they
slander us. Sadly, we seem to be all to willing to
>return the "favor". It was said that our faith is more "mature" than
theirs. Well, then let's apply James and prove our
>faith by our deeds.

No problem about the posting of my email. They have heard me call them
liberal before and they, like me, will live to fight another day's
battle. Things happen. I would say that if some on this board ar a bit
incensed at me using a descriptive phrase or derogatory of the YECs for
not having the same view of religion as we do (Blake), then I would say
it clearly illustrates why, as I told one gentleman tonight that the ASA
is almost totally ignored and has only the tiniest of impact in the YEC
Old Earth debate. Here is what I told him:

Frankly, the ASA has zero impact on these issues. Few like my opinions
on why, but I suspect it is because few in the ASA hold to much
historicity (of a kind upon which one can place his fingers), in the
early Genesis account. The YECs hate me so I do have some impact. They
ignore the ASA. I would rather be hated than ignored.

***
Douglas wrote:
> Glenn Morton wrote:
>
> >3. God has a choice--communicate what actually happened at
> creation or
> >communicate a fictional account (There is only one thing
> which actually
> >happened.)
> >
> >
> This way of stating the matter seems to me to disregard what
> it is not
> safe to disregard in catechesis, namely the extent to which
> God must, as
> Calvin put it, lisp in the way a nursemaid might when talking to an
> infant, in revealing any truth to finite beings at any
> particular point
> their historical development.

But if God lisps, 'the earth is flat', I suspect we would have a problem
with the content of his lisping. Lisping and truth are not mutually
exclusive. Another dead red herring.

As individuals, cultures, and as a
> species, we must learn sequentially. I see no evidence that
> God is wont
> to reveal trigonometric functions to people who do not understand
> arithmetic. What God revealed in Genesis 2, IMHO, was an
> answer to the
> question, "If our creator is all-powerful and perfectly good, why is
> evil present in his creation?" The revealed answer to this
> question is
> the true answer.

The same fallacy of all or nothing I have addressed in my previous post.
Why exactly does God have to grant graduate degrees in science to tell
the truth in a simplified manner? I simply fail to see the logic here.
No one is saying what you are trying to claim we are saying. Maybe this
isn't a dead red herring but a straw man, which is easily knocked down.

It makes a practical difference in the life of every
> believer because it explains the presence of evil and suffering
> *without* granting a licence to ignore it. It was never intended to
> answer questions which, when rightly understood,

I always love this phrase 'when rightly understood,' because the YECs
use it so liberally. What it means in reality is 'when rightly
understood, defined as what I understand it to be'. Yeah, there is a
great standard of truth.

have no conceivable
> moral implications, which were not raised until the 19'th
> century, and
> so it is not a false answer to those questions.
>
> I suspect that this belief:
>
> IF I stand in right relation to God THEN I will have
> God-like powers of
> knowing even concerning empirical matters which could not
> possibly make
> a difference in any helping me to make any choice I could conceivably
> face in my life

Another straw man. That is not what we are saying. We can misunderstand
the scripture, but if the scripture claims intellectual mush, y'all seem
to go to great lengths to turn that mush into gold. Or alternqtively,
you proclaim it is gold when in fact it is mush. Wouldn't it be easier
to simply proclaim it mush and move on?
>
> is an evil whenever and wherever it appears among humans, and that a
> person does no wrong in endeavoring to disabuse people of that
> particular, illiberal illusion.

What illiberal illusion? That one ought to seek the truth? (oh there I
go again with that either/or thinking again. Both truth and falsehood
are equally true. I will have to try to remember this.
Received on Fri Apr 16 22:15:33 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 16 2004 - 22:15:33 EDT