RE: [asa] Is Science an enemy of faith? (Laminin too)

From: Jon Tandy <>
Date: Mon Jan 05 2009 - 01:18:17 EST



I wasn't promoting the evolution controversy, in contrast with the previous
speaker. However, I did feel a bit of a "cold chill" in the moments before
I had to go up, in thinking that even in the very mild, balanced
presentation I was to give, there could definitely be a "tension of
conflict" between the two presentations. It was actually an interesting
spiritual experience. I had this feeling come over me that I recognize from
the past as being due to an evil spirit, and I had to go outside and have a
talk with God. Felt his Spirit return, and all was good - I am suspecting
that I was letting a spirit of fear or something else distract me from the
right focus.


Anyway, the main point where I mentioned evolution specifically was in
suggesting "Theistic Evolution/Evolutionary Creation" as a viable "creation
model" that many Christians sincerely hold, based on the evidence that they
see. And no, in this particular audience they didn't start throwing stones.
There were several places where I could have provoked a debate, but that
wasn't my purpose. In particular, if I had brought up too many
faith-shaking revelations from science, without sufficient time to explain
the theological and scientific reasons and approaches to the problem, I
could have weakened rather than strengthened the faith of some involved. I
told them they'd have to come back for the rest of the 30-hour presentation
(which I haven't written yet).


There was a point where someone asked me to explain why "no beneficial
mutations" was a bad scientific argument. I approached it by first saying,
this one is on AIG's list of arguments not to use; and that many Christians
now suggest very rapid evolution occurred post-Flood, which means they are
saying the same thing as evolutionists - there are beneficial mutations.
Then I mentioned the 20-year study (Lenski) on E.coli, which showed after
about 20,000-30,000 generations, that a mutation had occurred that was
beneficial to the organism's ability to thrive in a less than optimal
environment - just one of many examples that exist, showing such mutations
have now been demonstrated by scientific evidence. There wasn't much
response, other than (I felt) a collective, silent "Hmm".


I've recently read something about Laminin, and my "baloney detector" is
definitely turned on to that. But I haven't done any research on it.


Jon Tandy


From: [] On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 10:52 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Is Science an enemy of faith? (Laminin too)


That's unfortunate that the organizer of the event didn't know beforehand of
the conflicts and work them out prior. It shouldn't be too difficult to
foresee if you ask the presenters what their main points are, and inform
them of the other speakers.


I wonder as you mention evolution, if a "cold chill" came across the room,
as Francis Collins says it does when he talks about it to evangelical


In the Sunday School class I attend we are starting in Gen. 1. I brought-up
a lot of points about evolution. It is interesting to hear the old
arguments that people mistakenly think; gave me a chance to practice telling
what I learned (why evolution doesn't go against entropy; DNA evidence for
evolution; etc.).


We were going to watch the famous laminen video. Have you seen it? The
"cross in the molecules" . holding everything together just as the Bible
says (Col. 1:17). The video wasn't available, so we'll watch it next time
likely. Sorry to say, I have a lot of rebuttals for it.





Colossians 1:17

He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.





From: [] On
Behalf Of Jon Tandy
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 9:08 PM
Subject: [asa] Is Science an enemy of faith?


I just got done with teaching a class at a "FaithBuilders" seminar, designed
for high school and college age youth, to help prepare them for the
challenges to faith as they head to college, etc., and have to confront
difficult issues. I got the organizers to schedule a "science and faith"
class, which I titled "Is Science an enemy of faith?" I was unaware that
the person who spoke before me (on the subject "Is there absolute truth?")
had chosen to speak quite a bit about evolution, and repeating the Answers
in Genesis line, essentially that evolution is the root of all modern moral
evils, and it has to be confronted at all costs.


My presentation went something like this (I only had an hour, and later had
a chance to answer a few additional questions on the "bad scientific
arguments" that I mentioned). The presentation started and ended with
scriptures from Psalms on the wonder at God's creation and his care for



This year is Charles Darwin's 200th birthday anniversary, and 150th
anniversary of "On the Origin of Species". We are going to hear a lot about
science and faith this year in the media, mostly negative toward religion.
The "New Atheists" are increasingly mounting the attack on Christianity, and
using "science" to make their case (actually philosophy masquerading as
science). Some Christian leaders agree with the New Atheists that we can't
accept both good science and the Bible, which is not a wise approach to
science and faith.


Science could cause us to lose our faith for several reasons: 1) warfare
model, 2) bad science, 3) bad theology/philosophy, and 4) failure to
acknowledge God.


The warfare model says that science and religion are in conflict, and only
one or the other can be right. The truth is that the early scientists were
Christians who worshipped God as they sought to understand the workings of
nature (Galileo, Newton, Kepler, etc.). There was no conflict in their
minds. Warfare model sets up a false dichotomy between the actions of God
and the actions of nature. (gave examples of "what the Bible says" vs.
"what science says", such as whether God or nuclear fusion makes the light
from the sun, God knits us in the womb vs. sperm/egg as cause of babies
being formed, God or gravity upholds the world, God or
pressure/temperature/humidity is the cause of rain and snow) There is no
reason why these different sets of explanations have to be in conflict.


Bad science taught as "Christian truth" builds our faith on a shaky
foundation. Gave several examples of bad science in creationist writings,
such as decreasing speed of light as evidence of young universe, Grand
Canyon as evidence for global flood, dino and human tracks together in
Paluxy River bed, no beneficial mutations, no transitional species, water
vapor canopy, and no new species formed after initial creation. For many of
these, even Answers in Genesis lists them as bad or questionable arguments
for creationists to use.


Bad theology: "The Bible must teach accurate science, or else it can't be
trusted for anything." "False accusation of fellow believers" (calling them
atheists because they accept the age of the earth, etc.). and "Science has
proved that there is no God" (this is where the atheists bring in
philosophical conclusions and falsely call it science.)


Failure to acknowledge God: If we fail to see God's order, purpose, and
beauty in creation we may lose sight of faith. If we believe that nature is
fully sufficient to account for the origin of everything, then God is
extraneous. Science can tell us "how" and "what", but it can't answer
questions of meaning and purpose, "who" and "why", and ultimate origins.


Revelation and truth: "Two books" of God's revelation (nature and
scripture/revelation). No truth can threaten God, or genuine faith, because
all truth is God's truth. Science is man's flawed interpretation of nature,
and theology is man's flawed interpretation of scripture. There might be
conflict between science and theology, but not between nature and God.


Possible models (theories) of creation: 1) Instant creation. 2) Separate
acts of creation over time (gap theory, day-age, days of proclamation). 3)
Theistic evolution/Evolutionary creation. Each of these models is held by
thinking Christians, who is trying to deal with the evidence, and each has
their own strengths and weaknesses. I didn't have time to elaborate all the
strengths and weaknesses, but throughout the presentation I did comment on
some of the unsupportable young-earth arguments. Later in response to a
question, I talked some about the appearance of age hypothesis and its
problem of a deceptive God.


Some reasonably good arguments for God (mainly philosophical, not
necessarily scientific): 1) anthropic principle, 2) Cosmological argument /
origin of matter, 3) moral argument, 4) argument from religious need, 5)
argument from joy, 6) historical arguments for Christian faith, and 7)
argument from experience with God (miracles, healings, personal ministry of
Jesus Christ or angels, answers to prayer, etc.)



The class was pretty well received. For an introductory class to a group
that were not necessarily all scientifically literate, it may have gone too
deep. But hopefully it will give them something to think about, and
possibly give them something to refer to, for those who do face faith
challenges once they study enough scientific evidences.


Jon Tandy


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jan 5 01:18:53 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 05 2009 - 01:18:53 EST