Re: Shapes of a Wedge

From: Michael Roberts <>
Date: Tue May 18 2004 - 09:24:45 EDT


Please spell out the dire consequences to the environment from YEC and give
references. I know this to be the case but would like to know where YEC
anti-environmentalists write their case.

After all why worry about the end of oil if the rapture will happen in a few
weeks and with a bit of luck the Iraq debacle will hasten Armageddon.

I wish I were joking

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <>
To: <>; "Jan de Koning" <>
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: Shapes of a Wedge

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jan de Koning" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 5:22 PM
> Subject: Re: Shapes of a Wedge
> > At 04:45 PM 17/05/2004 -0400, Al Koop wrote:
> > >You and I probably agree (along with many others) that there already
> > >adequate arguments for accepting evolution that take the Bible and the
> > >Christian theological tradition seriously. I think it will take some
> > >one with a very high profile in the religious limelight to make any
> > >headway quickly. If someone with the clout of a Billy Graham (and
> > >doesn't seem to be anybody of his stature to take his place right now)
> > >would make a point of supporting evolution, things could change
> > >substantially. But if evolution acceptance has to go pulpit by
> > >pulpit,church by church, it is going to be a long haul I am afraid.
> > >The support that the pope has given has not even made much of a dent in
> > >the general public of the US as far as I can tell. But maybe an
> > >evangelical "celebrity" might make a difference.
> >
> > Is it really necessary that everyone accepts the view that God created
> > using evolution? If so, it gets us in a quagmire of discussions about
> > Bible interpretation. Someone without higher education would benefit
> > little of the discussion, and those of us who want to show how
> > does not contradict our high view of Biblical Truth would forever be
> > discussing things while we will be not able to convince those who have
> > had a thorough scientific education, enforced by a studying of reformed
> > (Calvinistic) philosophy. I tried, but I was unable to do so, though I
> > still accepted as a good reformed Calvinist, thanks to a discussion led
> > someone else in our church. But, all those who did not study science
> > and/or philosophy still don't believe that what I say is correct.
> > We all believe, that Jesus Christ died for our sins. Let that be
> > enough. Teaching "evolution" to non-scientists is practically
> > I think.
> Jan -
> This would be fine if anti-evolutionists would agree that
> is not a church-dividing issue, that rejection of it is not necessary for
> salvation, and - most importantly - if they would stop going on crusades
> against evolution. But they don't. As I pointed out in the letter I
> included in my post, they make Christianity look stupid to nonbelievers &,
> in addition, are responsible for the loss of faith of some Christians when
> they discover what the world is really like. (See, e.g., examples Glenn
> Morton has noted.) In addition, opposition to evolution & YEC views tie
> with ideas about the environment which can have serious practical
> consequences.
> Shalom
> George
Received on Tue May 18 10:26:30 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 18 2004 - 10:26:31 EDT