Walter wrote:
>>>My suggestion is that we should instead emphasize that science is about
physical things and the Christian Faith is about spiritual matters.
There need not be a conflict between science and religion and THAT is
what is important. If all could come to believe this, then I think that
the YEC viewpoint would just fade away with time as an irrelevant issue.<<<
But Christianity isn't like Hinduism or myriad of other world religions. It
can't be based only on some kind of 'in your head,' un-testable spirituality. It
must be a _physical thing_ and it must be based on the historical authenticity
of the New Testament (i.e. that Christ was resurrected - an historical
occurrence).
The problem here may be that the YEC applies the same standard of historical
discourse to the creation story of the early chapters of Genesis. A story which
could not possibly be described in any _humane_ way, other than it has been
related in Genesis, given the scientific knowledge of the ancient authors or
story tellers.
Richard.
Walter Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com> on 11/02/2002 11:48:11
To: george murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
cc: John W Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com>, glenn.morton@btinternet.com,
asa@calvin.edu (bcc: Richard Kouchoo/First Data Resources/AU)
Subject: Re: Glenn makes front page of AiG today
george murphy wrote:
>
> It's not clear to me from what you've written here just what you're
arguing
> with. What is "the current approach being taken" which "will never succeed in
> convincing a YEC to believe in evolution and remain Christian"? And who on
this
> list has suggested "converting YECs into atheists"?
>
> What I have suggested is that people be convinced to
> a) take scientific evidence and theories seriously, and
> b) appreciate the variety of _true_ and _authoritative_ material in
> scripture.
>
> Of course the meta-scientific claims of Dawkins _et al_ should be
opposed
> as well.
>
> Shalom,
>
> George
>
But as Glenn mentioned (and a similar observation was made in a post by
Christopher Sharp) when a YEC becomes convinced of the "truths of
science", he usually becomes an atheist. If this the net result of
hammering on the validity of science, then why is that a worthwhile goal
for a Christian?
I'm suggesting that one is attacking the wrong problem. For example,
Charles Coulson in "How now shall we live" has one of his main
characters make the the statement: "I'll find out how to argue with it
(evolution). I'll find out why the story we heard here today is wrong or
I'll give up my faith too."
So my point is that we should be dealing with a far more fundamental
spiritual issue than the validity of the "facts" of science. YECs are
generally opposed to conventional science because they perceive it as a
direct threat to their faith. Trying to convince them that they are
wrong about the validity of science is interpreted as a direct attack on
Christianity.
My suggestion is that we should instead emphasize that science is about
physical things and the Christian Faith is about spiritual matters.
There need not be a conflict between science and religion and THAT is
what is important. If all could come to believe this, then I think that
the YEC viewpoint would just fade away with time as an irrelevant issue.
Just an opinion.
Walt
================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 10 2002 - 22:27:33 EST