Re: [asa] Focus on the Family supports the YEC nonsense

From: <cmekve@aol.com>
Date: Thu May 24 2007 - 15:07:35 EDT

Not to be (too) cynical, but papers here in Colorado recently published info that contributions to FoF's political action side of the organization are down considerably.  This email sounds like a fund raising item to rouse the grassroots, with the added benefit of not actually having to express an opinion on the issue of YEC.

Karl
**************
Karl V. Evans
cmekve@aol.com

-----Original Message-----
From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
To: Carol or John Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com>
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Thu, 24 May 2007 11:16 am
Subject: Re: [asa] Focus on the Family supports the YEC nonsense

Burgy said:  David O. commented that Dobson was "friendly" to Hugh Ross.

By "friendly" I didn't mean "nice" or "gentlemanly," I meant not opposed to the substance of his views.  I wasn't using the term in the same was a Campolo did of Fallwell (which in itself, of course, was just one of those things you say when somebody dies).

Burgy said:  Apparently Ham thinks that this means that anyone who calls AIG's claims nonsense, and tries to persuade others of this claim, is attacking the constitution. Whew! I guess that, under this misguided mindset, some of us here are attacking the constitution!

Believe me when I say that the one of the last people in the world I want to defend is Ken Ham.  However, a fair assessment of "Defcon's" efforts here leads me to suggest that Ham has a point.  After all, the so-called "creation museum"  is privately funded and in itself has nothing at all to do with public education.  The so-called "creation museum" may be completely wrong, completely dumb, and contrary to scientific and theological integrity (and personally I think it's all of those things -- I feel ill just thinking about the damage it will do to the cause of the gospel and the cause of truth) -- but, in America, people have a sacred right to say things that are wrong, dumb, and lacking in scientific and theological integrity.  "Defcon" is trying to spin this into an assault on "science education" and thereby to paint the "creation museum" as a constitutional church-state issue (note "Defcon's" slogan:  "Campaign to Defend the Constitution" http://www.defconamerica.org/)  That's wrong, dumb, and disingenuous too.
 

But aside from the above, I'm still a bit puzzled by Dobson highlighting this in his newsletter.  "Defcon," as far as I know, isn't a culture war heavy hitter, and there aren't, as far as I know, any serious efforts afoot to keep the so-called "creation museum" from opening -- as there wouldn't be any legal grounds to do so.  But let me put a completely speculative and cynical hat on for a moment and suggest there's lots of grass-roots power and money in the perception that the Bible is being attacked.  It would be a shame, but I fear this "museum" will become one more of those symbolic culture war beachheads.

On 5/24/07, Carol or John Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
> Gordon observed: "I don't see that Focus on the Family takes a specific position on the
> science (emphasis on the word science) issues involved here."
>  
> We obviously read the email differently. The email uses pejoratives to describe one side -- acceptance of the YEC nonsense as "science."
>  
> If I would give equal time to both science and AIG nonsense, in a sense I would be endorsing the YEC position. Might as well give equal time to the Flat Earthers.
>  
> The email is designed to associate the dreaded "left" with attacks on AIG's "science." It does a good job, I think, of appealing to the naive faithful.
>  
> Ham is quoted as saying: "What is incredible about all this is that this group called DefCon is supposed to be defending the Constitution," he told CitizenLink. "They say that you can have freedom of speech, freedom of religion – but you're not allowed to say that science supports the Bible."  Apparently Ham thinks that this means that anyone who calls AIG's claims nonsense, and tries to persuade others of this claim, is attacking the constitution. Whew! I guess that, under this misguided mindset, some of us here are attacking the constitution!
>  
> I would wish that, if Dobson really endorses science, he would say so and disavow AIG, ICR and other YEC positions. AFAIK, he has not done this.
>  
> David O. commented that Dobson was "friendly" to Hugh Ross. The late Jerry Falwell was also described (by Tony Compolo) as being at all times "friendly and a gentleman" and I have no reason to doubt this characterization of both him and Dobson. This has 0 to do with whether (or not) they are seriously in error on some issues.
>  
> Burgy

 

________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu May 24 15:08:32 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 24 2007 - 15:08:32 EDT