--------------3C441BF71E73
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I let a friend know of the new Article by Dr. Zorn on the ASA web pages.
She has done the following review:
> Dr. Zorn is making some serious mistakes that should, perhaps, be brought
> out.
>
> When he became a "young earther" he, too was young, and enthusiastic. I
> think it was an emotional response. He writes:
>
> "As the son of a physics professor, I had a love for science and as a
> naive and enthusiastic young believer, my mind was fertile ground for the
> ideas of this movement. As I look back upon those days, I now understand
> that we Christians were growing up in an environment hostile to belief.
> There was a pervasive sense that most intellectuals had abandoned the faith
> and given license to our generation to disregard the moral teachings of
> Scripture. Yet we knew that we had found something wonderful in
> Christianity. If Christianity were true and the world were against
> Christianity, we would have to oppose the world, especially the doctrines
> which had resulted in the decline of faith in the western world."
>
> In other words, there was no science at the foundation of his decision or,
> perhaps, even in the maintenance of his position. He goes on to explain:
> "Most people believe what they want to believe so the YECS arguments
> quickly persuaded me and a certain pride took root in my heart."
>
> This is an excellent warning to us concerning the way we bring up our
> children and the way that we teach them. As important as it is that they
> know the truth, it is equally, if not more important that arrogance has no
> place in it.
>
> He then explains what he feels are the limits of Christian wisdom:
>
> "It is true that in Christ we have a wisdom that the world lacks, but that
> wisdom expresses itself in a good life, and by deeds done in humility
> (James 3:13-17). Christian wisdom certainly does not mean we have a greater
> or more accurate scientific knowledge of the universe than the experts. It
> is also true that many scientists are biased against Christianity, but
> almost no one knowingly distorts evidence to disprove the Gospel. I know,
> because many scientists are my friends."
>
> I read this and found myself empathizing with the Professor at the end of
> "The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe" -- "dear me, what ARE they teaching
> these young people nowadays...?" -- or something to that effect. It is
> most certainly not a matter of "more accurate scientific knowledge" but
> simply of a better interpretation of it. And I am very glad that the
> scientists he knows are honest. Not all are. But that is not really the
> point, either. The point is that many scientists do not KNOW they are
> distorting evidence. So many times the conclusions are based so firmly on
> the premises that the data in the middle is simply seen in light of both.
> We are probably all guilty of this, which makes me all the more grateful
> for those who admit to the authority of Scripture and base their work on
> God's word and not man's mind. Man's mind is great as far as it goes -- it
> just doesn't happen to go very far.
>
> When Zorn chronicles what he refers to as his "collapse of a false belief,
> "meaning his belief in the YEC position, he speaks of the impact of walking
> through the university library and wondering, "Could all these educated
> people really be so completely wrong?" I know how he felt. I've been
> there. But, unlike him, I tried to read lots of material on both sides.
> From what Zorn writes, he simply spent his time from that point on reading
> Christian literature that denied the YE position. Mathematician or not,
> Zorn seems to be easily swayed by the passions of writers! He talks of
> being swayed by Davis Young's book to such an extent that he completely
> reverses his position:
>
> " I had read his first book, Creation and The Flood, a few years before,
> and, although it sowed seeds of doubt about the young earth, I had not
> changed my views. But as I read this book, I saw that the scientific
> arguments for a young earth were completely untenable. .... And so,
> although it was painful, I asked myself if I wanted to continue to believe
> in something that is quite plainly wrong. I decided I did not, and so
> rejected the young earth position."
>
> That is quite a blanket statement to make. No explanation. Just
> "completely untenable." Not to be overly harsh or critical on this, but he
> has established no credibility so far concerning his decision-making
> abilities or the criteria he uses. Therefore his statement is rather hard
> to swallow on the simple basis of his authority.
>
> If we need any further stimulus to reach the children with actual science
> and not emotional pulls, this statement from him ought to do it: "But
> rejection of the young earth was not only a matter of science. It affected
> my faith and the core of my life." He goes on to state how he decided to
> take a lukewarm position and still lean toward "science." He became
> "open-minded but skeptical" about evolution and still did not abandon the
> faith. I know I am preaching to the choir here, but I have to ask, "What
> faith?" What was left to him? I hope Jesus. But if Jesus did not create
> the earth the way He said He did, then which Jesus? Again I would have to
> ask, If a man feels he must interpret the Bible away from the simple and
> clear meaning of the text, then how does he know what to trust? How does
> he really know what is true? The top of that slide may feel exhilarating
> in its inherent danger, but I have a feeling a number of bruises may be
> waiting at the bottom.
>
> Zorn says that in the past twelve years he has seen the YEC arguments
> crumble in the face of evidence. As a mathematician, he should know that
> what he is seeing is the interpretation of the evidence. But I don't think
> that difference is taught in the public schools much now: data is different
> from interpretation. He says the "last straw" concerned the Paluxy tracks.
> Have you ever noticed that when evolutionists are 180 degrees wrong -- or
> even just 179 -- they can switch directions like lightening and just say
> that they are readjusting theories? But let the creation side even
> possibly be mistaken and we have suddenly all become liars, ignorant, poor
> in science, etc. ad nauseum. I don't think that Zorn really is interested
> in the evidence at all, actually. I think he has switched sides once and
> is terrified of losing credibility by switching sides again. He MUST be
> right. His pride depends on it.
>
> He says he rarely reads ICR materials now. I wonder if he reads any other
> creation materials? Probably not. He then announces:
>
> " It is truly unfortunate that such well-meaning Christians who share with
> me both a high regard for Scripture and evangelism, have made so many
> scientific errors. Although it pains me to part company with Christian
> brethren, I believe they are doing more harm than good and urge you to be
> skeptical of their science."
>
> He refers to the "history" of the creationist movement. Well, actually,
> it probably started with Adam, not the Adventists. But that aside, the
> Talmud and Jewish oral tradition both make no qualms about the literal
> rendering of a 6 day creation, 1 day rest week in the not so distant past.
> Rather than going to these readily available resources, however, he
> depends on Ross to do his work for him, and simply believes what Ross says.
> Again, Zorn shows that he is much more subject to peer pressure and easily
> awed by numbers than he is interested in truth or facts when he cites the
> 1982 Council on Biblical Inerrancy and that Morris was the only one who
> refused to sign the concluding statement. He then cites Gleason Archer's
> paper.
>
> I have just finished reading Everett Purcell's essay, "The Day-Age Theory
> of Origins is not Scriptural." In this essay he has refuted Archer's paper
> point by point. I think it is worth the reading -- it is well done and
> logically presented. I would love it if Zorn would read it!
>
> I would GIVE him a copy of ReMine's "The Biotic Message" if I thought he
> would read it.
>
> I doubt he would though, in light of this:
>
> "For those of you who really believe in a literal interpretation of
> Genesis that requires a young earth, my appeal is to recognize that this
> flies in the face of an enormous amount of scientific evidence which
> essentially all scientists, Christian or otherwise, accept."
>
> I am not sure whether we are not 'essential' or not part of 'all' -- but it
> is evidently one of the two.
>
> Another major mistake he makes is to confuse technology with science in
> general. They are not the same. Technology, which is the developing of
> the products we use, is only a very small subset of science as a field.
> But he uses it as evidence that even Christians are helped by science. In
> doing that, he misses the point entirely. Of course we are helped by
> technology. I am quite grateful for vaccines, Scotch tape, and the remote
> on the television! But that is not what is being discussed when evolution
> and creation and Genesis are being talked about! He seems to confuse
> advances in technology with theories of origins and interpretation of
> evidence, for some reason. I keep thinking that, as a doctor, he ought to
> know better.....
>
> He says we ought to trust God's word and trust science. However, when the
> two seem to be in opposition, we can easily see which, for him, gets
> sacrificed. This, to me, is incredible. The creature's extraordinarily
> limited knowledge is preferred to the clear and simple words of the
> Creator? Is there something wrong with this picture? If one chooses to
> not believe in God, then that certainly would be more consistent with what
> Zorn is saying than to say he trusts God and the Bible except, of course,
> where he doesn't agree with them.
>
> Right.
>
> He begs the YEC crowd to re-examine Scripture. I think we have. Six days.
> According to kind. Out of water and by water. Those are pretty simple
> phrases, aren't they? I am reminded of the mother who asks her nagging
> son, "What part of 'no' don't you understand?"
>
> Instead of standing in awe of God, this man stands in awe of science:
>
> "While Christians may not always be happy with the results of science, we
> should respect scientists and oppose scientific theory only rarely,
> cautiously, and in humility, if at all."
>
> He then cautions against "anti-Christian science" and says we must be on
> our guard against it. OK. Does evolution count? You know, the man from
> simian stuff whereby we are the product of death and not the cause of it,
> nullifying the cross? Would that count as anti-Christian?
>
> Zorn then accuses us of presenting a "nearly insurmountable barrier between
> the educated world and the church." I would hope so! The "educated world"
> is much more closely resembling the 'indoctrinated world' than the
> 'educated world' now. As a teacher myself I frequently see the most
> appalling ignorance of even the most fundamental facts, not just in
> science, but in grammar, literature, history, and mathematics as well. But
> what the majority of students have learned to do well is to memorize
> whatever needs to be memorized for tests and then forget it. They are not
> learning to think. We may be creating technically proficient people in
> narrow fields, but, for the most part, there are very few students in
> America today who are being educated. I would submit to Zorn that it is
> not the educated world that is finding a barrier between itself and
> Biblical Christianity, but the indoctrinated world.
>
> I think it is also very important to remember Paul's words in 1 Corinthians
> concerning the wisdom of the world and the foolishness of our faith. When
> the wisdom of the world rests on faith in man's ability to figure things
> out, then I do sincerely hope that we are presenting a strong barrier.
>
> It is NOT, as he says, a matter of rejecting the Bible and God because the
> world cannot be more than 6000 years old! Christianity is NOT a mental
> exercise. It is the humbling of the entire self at the feet of Jesus. One
> either does that or one does not. One either trusts that God was God
> enough to preserve His word in a clear and understandable form, or one does
> not. There is a barrier -- a sharp and real dividing line, and the sharper
> and more real we can make it, the better.
>
> Of course there is room for trying to work with the evidence and see what
> God means by it. Of course there are years of good solid science to be
> done. But there is not one minute to try to change God's Word.
>
> Then he asks some questions. They deserve some answers:
>
> 1.But how many more have not accepted the Gospel because of the
> unnecessary demand that converts believe that the world is no more than
> 10,000 years old?
>
> ******probably no one for that reason. The Gospel is about Jesus Christ.
> If a person responds to Christ's call, I have real doubts that it is
> because of science or the lack of it. The moment of response or refusal is
> too intense, too private. It is not an objective thing at all, resting on
> any evidence by any scientists. These evidences might push toward that
> moment, but they do not intrude upon it.
>
> 2. And how many have unnecessarily gone through a crisis of faith
> similar to that which I described above?
>
> ****** I imagine most of us. Except it was necessary.
>
> 3. How many have chosen to give up their faith altogether rather than to
> accept scientific nonsense or a major reinterpretation of Scripture?
>
> ***** If the faith is in God and not in their own understanding, no one.
> And a major reinterpretation of Scripture? By those who accept a
> straightforward reading? He wouldn't want to take the time to explain
> himself here, would he?
>
> 4. How much have we dishonored our Lord by slandering scientists and their
> reputation?
>
> ****** He can't be serious! I would ask him how much he thinks we have
> slandered the Lord by implying that He can't talk straight? Zorn CAN'T be
> serious about the implication here that scientists as a group or profession
> serve the Lord? THEIR reputation? What about GOD'S reputation!?
>
> 5. How much have we sinned against Christian brothers holding another
> opinion by naming them "dangerous" and "compromisers"?
>
> ***** Now that he has scratched the importance of both doctrine and trust
> in God's Word so that we won't offend those who are dangerous and
> compromisers.....
>
> 6. How much responsibility do we bear for having taught others (James
> 3:1) things that probably are not even true?
>
> ******* I think those words are really going to come back to haunt him, if
> you will forgive the ghostly reference.
>
> He then says each must search his own heart. Well, I want to say that I
> don't trust my own heart. Like David, I plead the Lord to search it out
> and cleanse it Himself. No, searching my own heart won't work for me. I
> will search His heart. I will search Scripture.
--------------3C441BF71E73
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Received: from tomcat.ns.net by boris.infomagic.com (5.65c+IDA/FvK-1.50) with SMTP
id AA09364; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 22:47:21 -0700
Received: from default (ss-ppp26.ns.net [204.119.244.40])
by tomcat.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA07359
for <allen@infomagic.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 21:44:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 21:39:44 -0800
Message-Id: <01BD00FD.22835480.tuppence@ns.net>
From: Tuppence <tuppence@ns.net>
To: "'Allen Roy'" <allen@infomagic.com>
Subject: cleaned up review
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 21:39:33 -0800
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211
Encoding: 286 TEXT
Here you go, Allen. Yours was the second request I got, so it is here
cleaned up from anecdotes, misspellings, etc. I added a little toward the
end in place of the education anecdotes. It should be a little more
"general" in its references now.
God bless,
In Christ,
Penny
Dr. Zorn is making some serious mistakes that should, perhaps, be brought
out.
When he became a "young earther" he, too was young, and enthusiastic. I
think it was an emotional response. He writes:
"As the son of a physics professor, I had a love for science and as a
naive and enthusiastic young believer, my mind was fertile ground for the
ideas of this movement. As I look back upon those days, I now understand
that we Christians were growing up in an environment hostile to belief.
There was a pervasive sense that most intellectuals had abandoned the faith
and given license to our generation to disregard the moral teachings of
Scripture. Yet we knew that we had found something wonderful in
Christianity. If Christianity were true and the world were against
Christianity, we would have to oppose the world, especially the doctrines
which had resulted in the decline of faith in the western world."
In other words, there was no science at the foundation of his decision or,
perhaps, even in the maintenance of his position. He goes on to explain:
"Most people believe what they want to believe so the YECS arguments
quickly persuaded me and a certain pride took root in my heart."
This is an excellent warning to us concerning the way we bring up our
children and the way that we teach them. As important as it is that they
know the truth, it is equally, if not more important that arrogance has no
place in it.
He then explains what he feels are the limits of Christian wisdom:
"It is true that in Christ we have a wisdom that the world lacks, but that
wisdom expresses itself in a good life, and by deeds done in humility
(James 3:13-17). Christian wisdom certainly does not mean we have a greater
or more accurate scientific knowledge of the universe than the experts. It
is also true that many scientists are biased against Christianity, but
almost no one knowingly distorts evidence to disprove the Gospel. I know,
because many scientists are my friends."
I read this and found myself empathizing with the Professor at the end of
"The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe" -- "dear me, what ARE they teaching
these young people nowadays...?" -- or something to that effect. It is
most certainly not a matter of "more accurate scientific knowledge" but
simply of a better interpretation of it. And I am very glad that the
scientists he knows are honest. Not all are. But that is not really the
point, either. The point is that many scientists do not KNOW they are
distorting evidence. So many times the conclusions are based so firmly on
the premises that the data in the middle is simply seen in light of both.
We are probably all guilty of this, which makes me all the more grateful
for those who admit to the authority of Scripture and base their work on
God's word and not man's mind. Man's mind is great as far as it goes -- it
just doesn't happen to go very far.
When Zorn chronicles what he refers to as his "collapse of a false belief,
"meaning his belief in the YEC position, he speaks of the impact of walking
through the university library and wondering, "Could all these educated
people really be so completely wrong?" I know how he felt. I've been
there. But, unlike him, I tried to read lots of material on both sides.
From what Zorn writes, he simply spent his time from that point on reading
Christian literature that denied the YE position. Mathematician or not,
Zorn seems to be easily swayed by the passions of writers! He talks of
being swayed by Davis Young's book to such an extent that he completely
reverses his position:
" I had read his first book, Creation and The Flood, a few years before,
and, although it sowed seeds of doubt about the young earth, I had not
changed my views. But as I read this book, I saw that the scientific
arguments for a young earth were completely untenable. .... And so,
although it was painful, I asked myself if I wanted to continue to believe
in something that is quite plainly wrong. I decided I did not, and so
rejected the young earth position."
That is quite a blanket statement to make. No explanation. Just
"completely untenable." Not to be overly harsh or critical on this, but he
has established no credibility so far concerning his decision-making
abilities or the criteria he uses. Therefore his statement is rather hard
to swallow on the simple basis of his authority.
If we need any further stimulus to reach the children with actual science
and not emotional pulls, this statement from him ought to do it: "But
rejection of the young earth was not only a matter of science. It affected
my faith and the core of my life." He goes on to state how he decided to
take a lukewarm position and still lean toward "science." He became
"open-minded but skeptical" about evolution and still did not abandon the
faith. I know I am preaching to the choir here, but I have to ask, "What
faith?" What was left to him? I hope Jesus. But if Jesus did not create
the earth the way He said He did, then which Jesus? Again I would have to
ask, If a man feels he must interpret the Bible away from the simple and
clear meaning of the text, then how does he know what to trust? How does
he really know what is true? The top of that slide may feel exhilarating
in its inherent danger, but I have a feeling a number of bruises may be
waiting at the bottom.
Zorn says that in the past twelve years he has seen the YEC arguments
crumble in the face of evidence. As a mathematician, he should know that
what he is seeing is the interpretation of the evidence. But I don't think
that difference is taught in the public schools much now: data is different
from interpretation. He says the "last straw" concerned the Paluxy tracks.
Have you ever noticed that when evolutionists are 180 degrees wrong -- or
even just 179 -- they can switch directions like lightening and just say
that they are readjusting theories? But let the creation side even
possibly be mistaken and we have suddenly all become liars, ignorant, poor
in science, etc. ad nauseum. I don't think that Zorn really is interested
in the evidence at all, actually. I think he has switched sides once and
is terrified of losing credibility by switching sides again. He MUST be
right. His pride depends on it.
He says he rarely reads ICR materials now. I wonder if he reads any other
creation materials? Probably not. He then announces:
" It is truly unfortunate that such well-meaning Christians who share with
me both a high regard for Scripture and evangelism, have made so many
scientific errors. Although it pains me to part company with Christian
brethren, I believe they are doing more harm than good and urge you to be
skeptical of their science."
He refers to the "history" of the creationist movement. Well, actually,
it probably started with Adam, not the Adventists. But that aside, the
Talmud and Jewish oral tradition both make no qualms about the literal
rendering of a 6 day creation, 1 day rest week in the not so distant past.
Rather than going to these readily available resources, however, he
depends on Ross to do his work for him, and simply believes what Ross says.
Again, Zorn shows that he is much more subject to peer pressure and easily
awed by numbers than he is interested in truth or facts when he cites the
1982 Council on Biblical Inerrancy and that Morris was the only one who
refused to sign the concluding statement. He then cites Gleason Archer's
paper.
I have just finished reading Everett Purcell's essay, "The Day-Age Theory
of Origins is not Scriptural." In this essay he has refuted Archer's paper
point by point. I think it is worth the reading -- it is well done and
logically presented. I would love it if Zorn would read it!
I would GIVE him a copy of ReMine's "The Biotic Message" if I thought he
would read it.
I doubt he would though, in light of this:
"For those of you who really believe in a literal interpretation of
Genesis that requires a young earth, my appeal is to recognize that this
flies in the face of an enormous amount of scientific evidence which
essentially all scientists, Christian or otherwise, accept."
I am not sure whether we are not 'essential' or not part of 'all' -- but it
is evidently one of the two.
Another major mistake he makes is to confuse technology with science in
general. They are not the same. Technology, which is the developing of
the products we use, is only a very small subset of science as a field.
But he uses it as evidence that even Christians are helped by science. In
doing that, he misses the point entirely. Of course we are helped by
technology. I am quite grateful for vaccines, Scotch tape, and the remote
on the television! But that is not what is being discussed when evolution
and creation and Genesis are being talked about! He seems to confuse
advances in technology with theories of origins and interpretation of
evidence, for some reason. I keep thinking that, as a doctor, he ought to
know better.....
He says we ought to trust God's word and trust science. However, when the
two seem to be in opposition, we can easily see which, for him, gets
sacrificed. This, to me, is incredible. The creature's extraordinarily
limited knowledge is preferred to the clear and simple words of the
Creator? Is there something wrong with this picture? If one chooses to
not believe in God, then that certainly would be more consistent with what
Zorn is saying than to say he trusts God and the Bible except, of course,
where he doesn't agree with them.
Right.
He begs the YEC crowd to re-examine Scripture. I think we have. Six days.
According to kind. Out of water and by water. Those are pretty simple
phrases, aren't they? I am reminded of the mother who asks her nagging
son, "What part of 'no' don't you understand?"
Instead of standing in awe of God, this man stands in awe of science:
"While Christians may not always be happy with the results of science, we
should respect scientists and oppose scientific theory only rarely,
cautiously, and in humility, if at all."
He then cautions against "anti-Christian science" and says we must be on
our guard against it. OK. Does evolution count? You know, the man from
simian stuff whereby we are the product of death and not the cause of it,
nullifying the cross? Would that count as anti-Christian?
Zorn then accuses us of presenting a "nearly insurmountable barrier between
the educated world and the church." I would hope so! The "educated world"
is much more closely resembling the 'indoctrinated world' than the
'educated world' now. As a teacher myself I frequently see the most
appalling ignorance of even the most fundamental facts, not just in
science, but in grammar, literature, history, and mathematics as well. But
what the majority of students have learned to do well is to memorize
whatever needs to be memorized for tests and then forget it. They are not
learning to think. We may be creating technically proficient people in
narrow fields, but, for the most part, there are very few students in
America today who are being educated. I would submit to Zorn that it is
not the educated world that is finding a barrier between itself and
Biblical Christianity, but the indoctrinated world.
I think it is also very important to remember Paul's words in 1 Corinthians
concerning the wisdom of the world and the foolishness of our faith. When
the wisdom of the world rests on faith in man's ability to figure things
out, then I do sincerely hope that we are presenting a strong barrier.
It is NOT, as he says, a matter of rejecting the Bible and God because the
world cannot be more than 6000 years old! Christianity is NOT a mental
exercise. It is the humbling of the entire self at the feet of Jesus. One
either does that or one does not. One either trusts that God was God
enough to preserve His word in a clear and understandable form, or one does
not. There is a barrier -- a sharp and real dividing line, and the sharper
and more real we can make it, the better.
Of course there is room for trying to work with the evidence and see what
God means by it. Of course there are years of good solid science to be
done. But there is not one minute to try to change God's Word.
Then he asks some questions. They deserve some answers:
1.But how many more have not accepted the Gospel because of the
unnecessary demand that converts believe that the world is no more than
10,000 years old?
******probably no one for that reason. The Gospel is about Jesus Christ.
If a person responds to Christ's call, I have real doubts that it is
because of science or the lack of it. The moment of response or refusal is
too intense, too private. It is not an objective thing at all, resting on
any evidence by any scientists. These evidences might push toward that
moment, but they do not intrude upon it.
2. And how many have unnecessarily gone through a crisis of faith
similar to that which I described above?
****** I imagine most of us. Except it was necessary.
3. How many have chosen to give up their faith altogether rather than to
accept scientific nonsense or a major reinterpretation of Scripture?
***** If the faith is in God and not in their own understanding, no one.
And a major reinterpretation of Scripture? By those who accept a
straightforward reading? He wouldn't want to take the time to explain
himself here, would he?
4. How much have we dishonored our Lord by slandering scientists and their
reputation?
****** He can't be serious! I would ask him how much he thinks we have
slandered the Lord by implying that He can't talk straight? Zorn CAN'T be
serious about the implication here that scientists as a group or profession
serve the Lord? THEIR reputation? What about GOD'S reputation!?
5. How much have we sinned against Christian brothers holding another
opinion by naming them "dangerous" and "compromisers"?
***** Now that he has scratched the importance of both doctrine and trust
in God's Word so that we won't offend those who are dangerous and
compromisers.....
6. How much responsibility do we bear for having taught others (James
3:1) things that probably are not even true?
******* I think those words are really going to come back to haunt him, if
you will forgive the ghostly reference.
He then says each must search his own heart. Well, I want to say that I
don't trust my own heart. Like David, I plead the Lord to search it out
and cleanse it Himself. No, searching my own heart won't work for me. I
will search His heart. I will search Scripture.
--------------3C441BF71E73--