From: Iain Strachan (iain.strachan.asa@ntlworld.com)
Date: Wed Apr 30 2003 - 18:10:17 EDT
Blake,
Thanks for the comments. I also recall that things got pretty heated at the
time. Jim was posting very frequently to the list -often several times a
day-, and often getting pretty unpleasant with those who disagreed with him.
But at the time, my impression (my apologies to Jim if this is was
completely wrong), was that if someone was posting that frequently to a list
and was so fired up about an issue (Day-Age), that they frequently got
angry, that what was going on was a massive crisis of faith. Jim had just
booted YEC out by about a million light years, and perhaps wanted to find an
alternative that would resolve the crisis. In those circumstances, I really
question whether the right approach was to systematically challenge his
views (just as my views on ID and Vernon's numerics have been systematically
challenged by people who don't like them). It seems to me that people just
couldn't resist the temptation to show how the Day-Age view, with which they
didn't agree, was intellectually a non-starter. Was this really the
Christian thing to do in the circumstances?
Another point I recall here was that for a while, Vernon was prohibited from
posting to the group about Bible Numerics. At the time, the person
proposing that this subject should be avoided, did have the grace to mention
that it was not Vernon who was responsible for the bad feeling, but those
who responded to him. It has been my observation that there have been many
very nasty and sarcastic comments made about Vernon's position, in this case
from people who were clearly not experiencing a crisis of faith. A recent
example was the suggestion that "you have to have a PhD in Maths to get
saved" (again, my fallible memory may have got the exact words wrong; but
certainly having a PhD in Maths was a major component). This was plainly
untrue on at least three counts, namely:
(a) Vernon never implied you had to understand his work to get saved.
(b) Vernon doesn't have a PhD in Maths. (Sorry, Vernon; hope I haven't
blown your street-cred!! :-)
(c) Schoolchildren at around year 7 or 8 in Britain are taught about
triangular numbers (the major part of Vernon's work); it's part of the
standard Maths curriculum.
The poster in question ought have been well aware of much of this &
therefore I can only conclude that he could not resist making a nasty
sarcastic jibe. It is this kind of thing that every day makes me feel like
turning my back on the list. By all means one can make a reasoned and
courteously phrased argument as to why one thinks the numerics are not
helpful, or have an alternative explanation to the one proposed by Vernon
(and to be fair some of the group have done this and we've had some
constructive exchanges on it); but to resort to insults and ridicule is yet
another example of the depressingly unchristian behaviour I observe on the
list.
I live in hope that we can all learn to function better as a Christian
community, and can each benefit from the insights into our Creator and his
works that we each have received.
Best wishes,
Iain.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Blake Nelson" <bnelson301@yahoo.com>
To: "Iain Strachan" <iain.strachan.asa@ntlworld.com>
Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 9:58 PM
Subject: Re: The Nature of Atheist - Christian dialogue
> Iain --
>
> Hooray! Well said.
>
> I agree with your comments. Love, humility and
> openness should be our watchwords.
>
> To put the "twit filter" statement in context, since I
> was here too, if I recall correctly (which I might
> not), JimE had written several at best undiplomatic,
> and at worst, downright nasty posts directed at
> various people who disagreed with him which IIRC
> prompted lots of people to ask Terry about moderation.
> I think the statement (which was indelicately
> phrased) came out of the discussion of whether to have
> Terry review all the e-mails before they were posted
> to the list. The point of the post, as I vaguely
> remember, is that there were other ways, other than
> moderation to avoid such e-mails as JimE was then
> sending (although JimE was not specifically mentioned
> in the discussion about moderation by Terry, JimE
> himself noted that Terry had bounced at least one of
> his posts after moderation began and at first JimE
> railed about being censored through moderating). Of
> course, in that context, the Vernon reference was
> still gratuitous.
>
> I suppose that I should check the archive to see if my
> memory is correct, but I don't have time at the
> moment. If I have gotten any of this wrong with my
> limited long-term memory capcity, my apologies to
> anyone I inadvertently offend.
>
> Regards,
> Blake
>
> --- Iain Strachan <iain.strachan.asa@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
> > George wrote:
> >
> > > A bit of history may be helpful for those
> > relatively new to the list. A
> > few
> > > months ago Jim Eisele, then new to the list, was
> > trying to defend the
> > truth of the
> > > Genesis creation accounts - "truth" meaning the
> > kind of thing
> > fundamentalists &
> > > concordists want, accurate historical &/or
> > scientific accounts.
> > Apparently concluding
> > > that that wasn't possible, he now declares himself
> > an atheist & criticizes
> > the Genesis
> > > accounts because they _aren't_ true in that sense.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks in general for the comments that followed
> > this paragraph, which by
> > and large I think are pretty sensible. If one bases
> > one's whole faith on a
> > completely literal view of early Genesis, then if
> > something really
> > convincing challenges that (like the simple
> > observation that we can see
> > light from galaxies and supernovae that are millions
> > of light years away),
> > then that faith is liable to crumble. It nearly
> > destroyed Glenn Morton's
> > faith (see his website for his own personal
> > testimony on this), and it seems
> > to have destroyed Jim's faith. For most of my
> > Christian life, I have been a
> > pretty unquestioning accepter of the evolutionary
> > viewpoint; however
> > recently, largely as a result of working in an area
> > of probabilistic
> > modelling, machine learning and optimization theory,
> > I have come to the
> > conclusion that there are legitimate reasons to
> > question whether the
> > Dawkins-like view of evolution is valid. I shall
> > therefore continue to look
> > into the ID alternative, without basing my entire
> > faith on it.
> >
> > However, there is one other bit of history about
> > this affair (Jim's evolving
> > views during his membership of the list) that does
> > disturb me deeply about
> > the way this list functions, and I'd like to raise
> > it now for due
> > consideration. I do not feel that the list function
> > at all as a loving
> > Christian community; those in the minority, who
> > don't support the status quo
> > (at least of the some of the most vocal members of
> > the list), get treated
> > almost as if they are dreadful enemies. Now, when I
> > first decided to become
> > a Christian, it was the aspect of Christian love
> > that brought me to a
> > decision. I attended a weekend house-party of the
> > "Crusaders" organization
> > (a kind of non-denominational Sunday school), when I
> > was 16 (29 years ago
> > now!). Previously, my faith had been based entirely
> > on intellect & I
> > thought I'd got it all worked out pretty well. The
> > weekend brought home to
> > me that something intangible and wonderful bound the
> > people together that
> > was more than the sum of their parts. It was the
> > love of God that brought
> > people together. That combined with the fact that
> > the speakers repeatedly
> > emphasised the importance of inviting Jesus into
> > your life as your personal
> > Saviour, convinced me, and I did so, in the privacy
> > of my own bedroom,
> > shortly after returning from the House Party.
> >
> > But the cut-and-thrust and point scoring that goes
> > on in this list does not
> > bear the least resemblance to what I experienced all
> > those years ago, and if
> > I'd witnessed such things on that weekend, I would
> > have been put off
> > Christianity for life!
> >
> > The very worst example of this, which frankly
> > horrified and outraged me was
> > an incident some months ago when someone (I won't
> > name them), put up a post
> > on the list suggesting that we should make e-mail
> > technology work for us.
> > They showed that it was relatively straightforward
> > to set up an email
> > "filter" that scanned incoming emails for the
> > phrases "Jim Eisele", and
> > "otherbiblecode.com" (Vernon's web site), so that
> > such posts could be
> > immediately transferred to the "trash" folder. Jim
> > subsequently angrily and
> > very tellingly described this as a "twit filter".
> > Needless to say I thought
> > the suggestion to encourage people to put all Jim's
> > and Vernon's posts in
> > the trash folder was highly offensive behaviour and
> > I am completely
> > astonished that a Christian could even contemplate
> > such an act. Then to add
> > insult to injury, someone else replied to this email
> > with words to this
> > effect "hooray, no more bible numerics or day-age
> > nutters for me" (I forget
> > the actual words, but it was something like that).
> >
> > Actually, that wasn't the lowest the list ever sunk
> > to. The real low point
> > was when someone actually rejoiced in the fact that
> > Philip Johnson had had a
> > stroke and was therefore (at the time) out of
> > action. But for that comment
> > the poster was throughly and rightly condemned by
> > other members of the list,
> > even those who considered themselves to be
> > implacable opponents of Johnson.
> > But the above "Twit Filter" affair was never, (to my
> > knowledge) commented on
> > adversely, so I'm commenting on it now, and
> > registering my dismay.
> >
> > I think it's easy in a group of highly qualified
> > scientists to fall into the
> > trap of intellectual pride, and I suggest that we
> > all need to learn a little
> > more humility, and show a bit more respect for those
> > in the minority.
> > Frankly, if the level of sarcasm and insults doesn't
> > decrease dramatically,
> > I will feel that the only thing I can do is withdraw
> > politely from the list.
> > I am fallible, and liable to write things I later
> > regret when I see
> > something (as I do all too often) that angers me
> > being said on the list.
> > And because of that I end up in inner turmoil
> > worrying about having said
> > something that has deeply offended someone, or
> > wondering where the next
> > rebuke is going to come from.
> >
> > Also a word for Jim. When you write lines like:
> >
> >
> > **WARNING - ANTI-CHRISTIAN SENTIMENT TO FOLLOW**
> >
> >
> > you are frankly being very patronising. If you wish
> > to enter into an
> > Atheist/Christian dialogue, by all means do so, but
> > please try at least to
> > be courteous. If you write patronising stuff like
> > this you will only
> > succeed in antagonizing people, and causing them to
> > rise to the bait. It
> > may not be the way Christians are supposed to
> > behave, but we are all
> > fallible. It is so easy to bash off a crisply
> > worded email and hit the
> > "send" button without properly considering the
> > consequences.
> >
> > But I'd just like to summarise my thoughts by
> > quoting a short poem by one of
> > America's finest poets, Emily Dickinson (who was
> > evidently thinking of 1
> > Cor 1:20-21 at the time):
> >
> > ------------------------
> > Much Madness is divinest Sense -
> > To a discerning Eye -
> > Much Sense - the starkest Madness -
> > 'Tis the Majority
> > In this, as All, prevail -
> > Assent - and you are sane -
> > Demur - you're straightway dangerous -
> > And handled with a Chain -
> > -------------------------
> >
> > So please. Can we all be a bit more loving?
> > Iain
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 30 2003 - 18:10:43 EDT