Re: CT article: Darwinists, not Christians, stonewalling the facts

From: <>
Date: Fri Apr 01 2005 - 08:47:24 EST

Your response is unnecessarily hostile.
I've been studying human behavior and religion since 1973. I went to college thinking they would add to my knowledge. They were suppressing it. In 1998, I sent an essay titled Natural Selection and the Nature of God to the evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald who has established the new paradigm in 3 volumes and he said my conclusions were basically correct. I'll be happy to send you a copy of my original essay. Each of you should have MacDonald's 3 volumes heavily dog-eared in your library. I attended HBES 2000. Pinker was there. Wright was there. Trivers was there. Dawkins was there, but I was there to see MacDonald defend his work and he was attacked shamelessly by Jewish scientists. I saw it. I journaled it. I can offer you a copy of that. I don't care about satisfying a demand for historicity. I care for the truth. The truth is that genesis is allegorical. The Jews who wrote it, say openly in their texts that the meaning behind the stories in genesis is allegorical.
  Historians like Redford say the story of Joseph is a fiction. But here you all analyze genesis as if you are in a vacumm and what these Jewish scholars say about their own texts and historians say is of no account. Before you can teach anybody, you have to know what the allegories mean and you have to stop trying to interpret them literally, because the original Jewish religionists never did!
If you're ignored, its because a lot of money is being devoted to obscuring the real truth by the very religionists whose texts you don't understand. You people are ignored because you really haven't caught on to the fact that a lot of people don't want you to catch on. You know your present understanding is rationally untenable but you refuse to interpret some of the texts allegorically. Your unbelief is your own undoing. You are ignored? Isn't that what you've been doing to me? Isn't that the attitude that reeks from your response? How dare this person enter into our discussion.
I know you're ignored and once you do understand and your eyes are open, it will be worse because then you will no longer be ignored. You'll be attacked. Once you know the truth and are attacked you'll long for the days when you were ignored. I came here to help you, but you will not listen. That is why you are losing. This battle will take generations but it must be waged little by little, step by step. The Jews call this tedious process incrementalism, changing a host society one law at a time until it is subjugated. It works the other way around. Changing a host society until it is healthy and free.
Until you know what I know and are ready to act on your knowledge, you will lose, but it is not a readily apprehensible knowledge, and is not likely to be apprehended by the masses, hence your Protestant intellectuals must first have the understanding among themselves and may have to talk in parables to the masses, because that is what parables are for.
You are whining because you have a lot of learning to do, it is a new paradigm, and a lot of organizing to recover your churches which are split by the liberal/conservative divide due to the collapse of the old paradigm. Stop whining and get to Jerusalem, my friend. When you think of how ignored you are think of Him on the Cross. It looked like he would be ignored as he hung there at the greatest possible distance from his God but it didn't stop Him and he didn't whine.
rich faussette

-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn Morton <>
Sent: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:43:32 -0600
Subject: RE: CT article: Darwinists, not Christians, stonewalling the facts

I don't know how you got to this letter from mine. The point is, that the fact that the CT article doesn't really give evolutionists (theistic or otherwise) a seat at the table is a good sign of our impotence. It isn't a matter of what should be taught, or even how much historicity is really there. WE ARE IGNORED and there is nothing more damning than being ignored. My observation was simply this:
We don't satisfy most people's demand for historicity. I don't care whether you think we shouldn't. And it really doesn't matter what the Jewish approach is. We are in the situation that we are in which is one of being unimportant. You, I and the ASA have all be relegated to a footnote in the history of Christian creation apologetics. The majority of people quized on the issue don't take an evolutionary position. Don't like it? I can't help you. Talking about what others do doesn't seem to solve the plain fact that we theistic evolutionists are irrelevant in the majority of congregations.
an afterthought. Maybe the fact that I got your's and Georges responses is why we are losing.
-----Original Message-----
From: []
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: CT article: Darwinists, not Christians, stonewalling the facts

Just an observation: The Jews assert again and again that the Bible is written on a number of levels geared to the apprehension of the reader. The Kabbalists and Talmudists even forbid some stories in genesis to be explained to those Jews who are of insufficient wisdom, and yet here the attempt is being made to find one solution that will satisfy all readers, clearly not the intent of the people whose forebears wrote the Bible and perhaps impossible to do. I would point out that Barna research consistently reports that conservative Christian congregations are growing while liberal denominations are splintering and shrinking. You're never going to satisfy everybody but part of Christian love is not to alienate people of lesser intellect who need God as much as the scientists do. How do you reconcile religion and science without alienating the masses? I don't know the solution to that, but I know Judaism never tried and perhaps that is a lesso n you should consider. Among yours
 elves, you can argue the finer points of scientific Biblical interpretation but you cannot scatter the sheep with the sometimes necessarily provocative conclusions you come to.
From the controversy, it is obvious that you are working your way out of an old paradigm which does not serve anymore. One of the interesting things about the new paradigm is that once you enter it, you'll have more social science in common with the YECS who want to retain the old morality than some of your own colleaugues of a more liberal persuasion.
A God that says "You shall observe my institutions and my laws: the man who keeps them shall have life through them. I am the Lord" and then keeps a tribal people alive for 2,500+ years while other civilizations rise and fall all around them is the most powerful scientifically valid God of all.
These are very exciting times.
Best regards,
rich faussette
-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn Morton <>
To: 'Randy Isaac' <>;
Sent: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 07:53:06 -0600
Subject: RE: CT article: Darwinists, not Christians, stonewalling the facts

I read that article and it verifies something that I have said recently
in the YECs have won thread. The ASA has almost zero influence in the
Christian community today. It is for the same reason that the YEC
churches are growing and the more mainline/liberal ones aren't. People
in general don't see a way to avoid the concept that God is capable of
creating a universe and then communicating what he actually did. A God
who can't do the two things above, isn't very powerful. Today, most
members of the ASA don't put enough historicity into Genesis to satify
most of the laity. Like it or not, but don't kill me, the messenger who
is telling y'all something you don't want to hear or believe.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [] On Behalf Of Randy Isaac
> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 9:39 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: CT article: Darwinists, not Christians,
> stonewalling the facts
> Thank you, Pattle. It's good to hear from you again. Thanks for the
> encouraging words.
> Perhaps I misunderstood Colson but I was concerned that he
> was in effect
> disenfranchising a significant portion of our ASA members,
> denying them a
> seat at the table. When he said "Instead, from the start,
> evolution 'has
> primarily been an
> attack on religion by militant atheists who wrap themselves
> in the mantle of science in an effort to refute all religious
> claims concerning a creator-an effort that has also often
> attempted to suppress all scientific criticisms of Darwin's
> work.'" it seems that he's dismissed all consideration of
> scientific aspects of
> evolution as a viable part of the dialog.
> It is important that at ASA we ensure the acceptance in the
> dialog between
> science and Christian faith all those who come under the
> umbrella of the
> doctrine of creation, as per the orthodox creeds, and integrity in
> commitment to science. We do not take a position advocating
> particular
> views within that umbrella but encourage the honest
> expression and exchange
> of ideas. Our goal is to stress Christian unity around the
> central doctrine
> of creation, the teaching that God exists and created all
> things. Whether
> or not you and I consider theistic evolution to be the best
> perspective, it
> is important that we recognize it as a legitimate option for
> discussion and
> not heresy, provided they affirm the core statement of faith.
> YEC's are
> also welcome provided they are consistent with the integrity
> of science.
> (Generally, that's tough to do aside from an appearance of
> age approach.)
> Dick Bube protested that he wasn't trying to say he was a TE
> but only that
> TE was a viable possibility for Christians. He took a lot of
> lumps for that
> but I think it's an important message and a good example for
> us. I would
> suggest that ASA needs to be pro-active and articulate about
> the parameters
> within which the science/Christianity debate should
> legitimately take place,
> but without advocating any position within those parameters.
> Randy
> P.S. But to what extent does a society of tolerance need to tolerate
> intolerance?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pattle Pak Toe Pun" <>
> To: "Randy Isaac" <>
> Cc: <>
> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 10:08 PM
> Subject: Re: CT article: Darwinists, not Christians,
> stonewalling the facts
> > Dear Randy,
> >
> > As a fellow of ASA who has written about the issues of evolution, I
> > happened to agree with Colson excepting for minor details.
> Since ASA
> > does not hold an official position on evolution other than the
> > publication "Teaching evolution" which encourages
> open-mindedness and
> > critical evaluation, may I humbly suggest that ASA not
> respond as an
> > organization to the article but let individual ASA members
> respond if
> > they so desire. In my humble opinion, this list serve has been
> > dominated by the theistic evolutiion perspective which may not
> > represent the majority opionion of ASA membership.
> >
> > God bless you as you prepare to serve as executive director of ASA.
> >
> > Pattle.P.T.Pun, Ph.D.
> > Professor of Biology,
> > Wheaton College,
> > Wheaton, IL 60187
> > phone: 630-752-5303
> > fax: 630-752-5996
> > email:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Randy Isaac wrote:
> >
> >> How do all of you feel that ASA should respond to
> editorials such as
> >> Colson's?
> >>
> >> a) Ignore it?
> >> b) Encourage members to write letters to the editor
> clarifying some
> >> of
> >> the
> >> issues so that maybe one of them might be published?
> >> c) Just discuss it/criticize it among ourselves but keep
> quiet publicly?
> >> d) Use it as a basis for discussion in our respective churches?
> >> e) Encourage the director to write a letter to the editor?
> (not an ASA
> >> position but a personal opinion, identified as the ASA director)
> >> f) None of the above? any combination of the above? other?
> >>
> >> I do believe that Colson doesn't frame the issue very well
> and that
> >> CT readers deserve a better perspective. Thinking beyond
> Colson and
> >> this article, how pro-active should ASA be, as an
> >> organization, to articulate the relevant perspectives and
> issues without
> >> advocating any particular view?
> >>
> >> Randy
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "jack syme" <>
> >> To: <>
> >> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 7:49 PM
> >> Subject: Re: CT article: Darwinists, not Christians,
> stonewalling the
> >> facts
> >>
> >>
> >> > The rhetoric and ignorance displayed by Colson here, strikes me
> >> > exactly the same way his rhetorical BreakPoint commentary on the
> >> > Schiavo case on Friday did.
> >> >
> >> > Either he doesnt care about the truth, or he is in
> serious need of
> >> > a
> >> > fact
> >> > checker.
> >> >
> >> > In either case, this is irresponsible commentary. Another
> >> > embarassement
> >> > for Christianity IMO.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
Received on Fri, 01 Apr 2005 08:47:24 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 01 2005 - 08:47:46 EST