Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> To the Forum:
> I appear to have stirred up a hornets' nest with my assertion that
> theistic evolutionists are both complacent and ill-informed in believing
> they can have both evolution and Christ. It is clear from the exchanges
> I have had with a number of members that evolution is being accepted 'by
> faith' rather than 'by sight'; the doctrine is based on the
> interpretation of historica data, is untestable, and - as I have
> attempted to demonstrate - because of its peculiar nature,
Is this all you have learned? We have presented( to us) cogent argument and
you say that we "accept by faith rather than by sight'? How sad. I would
have hoped at least you would have learned that we believe we have good
reason to think the way we do, even if we are (in your understanding) wrong.
> While the atheist and agnostic recognize well enough that the theory
> must be true, it is hard to understand - at least, on the human level -
> why those claiming allegiance to Christ are prepared to allow it to
> dictate the terms of their acceptance of God's word. It is clear to me
> that what the TE understands by 'the gospel' is a matter of 'pick 'n'
> mix'. Let me explain: any biblical passage (including even the words of
> Christ) that appears to endanger their committment to evolution is
> questioned, and thereafter excluded from further consideration. In such
> circumstances what remains can hardly be seriously claimed to be the
> inspired, inerrant, word of God!
Once again, we have tried to give you good reason to believe that this is
not the case. Two possibilities raise themselves: we are not communicating
(sad but conceivable), or you think we are lying. What evidence do you have
we are lying?
> A few years ago, John Stear, an atheist skeptic, wrote to the editor of
> 'The Skeptic' (the journal of the Australian Skeptics). The following
> are excerpts from his letter: (snipped)
> Jonathan has suggested that our discussions of late have been somewhat
> circular and has suggested that the time has come to move forward. I
> agree. May I therefore hear how TEs respond to John Stear's thinly-
> veiled suggestion that their views are intellectually bankrupt?
So you would agree with Stear's analysis then? Personally I try and avoid
simplistic "children of lights vs children of darkness" comparisons on
either side. I think it was Francis Schaffer who introduced the concept of
"co-combatants" on issues. Vernon, I believe that you and I would jointly
oppose reductionism, scientism, materialism etc. By the same token, Stear
and I would oppose ill-informed criticism of organic evolution. I stand
against the united front presented by Stear and yourself in saying that
evolution and Christianity are opposed.
Incidentally, I believe that John Stear presents more strawpersons (I am
feeling political correct this morning) than a haystack. Unless someone
gives me a convincing reason to deal with them I won't bother.
I am glad you share the sensation of going round in circles. However to
advance both sides need to learn. I have learned something of your position
and where you have been coming from. This has helped me understand a bit
better your concerns, I think this advances things. What have you learned
that advances the discussion?
> "When I show a man he is inconsistent, I make him decide whether of the
> two he loves better, the portion of truth he already holds, or the
> portion of error." (J.H.Newman, Tract 85)