Re: Kurt Wise on the creation crisis in Christian colleges

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <>
Date: Thu Feb 02 2006 - 23:27:45 EST

On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 17:59:46 -0600 Mervin Bitikofer <>
> ... without appearing to chop down the trees!!!? Appearances are
> certainly important -- but I think the issue is deeper than mere
> appearances. How does one go about challenging scientific (or even
> theological) illiteracy without actually chopping down trees for
> real?
> What is one man's peripheral and optional doctrine is another's
> central
> tenant of truth. What if the intended corrective "surgery"
> envisioned
> by many here finds the YEC "cancer" so intermingled with vital
> organs
> that it cannot be removed without spiritually killing the patient?
> So
> invested are some people in this concordist thinking, that they
> cannot
> separate an attack on YEC thought from an attack on God's word
> itself. If it came down to a choice -- which would be more
> important? A scientifically (and even -- by the opinion of some
> here
> -- theologically) deficient view of reality, that is nevertheless
> held
> by an otherwise sincere believer whose heart belongs to God? Or a
> burned out spiritual husk of a life who has rejected God because of
> his
> devotion to having a correct scientific appraisal of nature -- and
> his
> inability to reconcile this with his convictions (very
> fundamentalist
> flavored) of what God's word ought to look like if it were really
> true?
> (I know someone, who IMO, strongly qualifies for the latter
> category,
> and I don't wish that on any of my YEC friends, though I think their
> position deliberately courts that danger.)
> I don't think we'll be finding any checklist at the pearly gates
> that
> will sort out the "scientifically correct", or even the
> "theologicall
> correct". Significantly, those things didn't even make the
> slightest
> mention when Jesus spoke of the sheep and goats. We must remember
> to
> keep all these things in perspective. There are other aspects to
> life.
> Some others (may I humbly suggest) may even be more important than
> the
> scientific take on the origins debate.
> --merv
You're right that entrance into the kingdom requires forgiveness, not a
list of propositions to which one adheres. However, a view that requires
that God mislead honest observers of his works (e.g., apparent age, one
among many), making the Heavnely Father the father of lies, is as
perverse as possible. That it also closes the door for those who know
something about creation and, because they cannot fit it to what "the
scriptures teach inerrantly," reject salvation, will certainly bring
judgment. The principle of Matthew 18:7 holds inexorably.
Received on Thu Feb 2 23:36:52 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Feb 02 2006 - 23:36:52 EST