Re: Student perceptions re evolution

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (dfsiemensjr@juno.com)
Date: Fri Aug 22 2003 - 16:15:51 EDT

  • Next message: Terry M. Gray: "Re: Poll results so far"

    On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:58:29 -0400 (EDT) Loren Haarsma
    <lhaarsma@calvin.edu> writes:
    >
    > I have a suggestion which is both slightly cynical and seriously
    > practical. Borrow one particular tactic from the ICR and the
    > Discovery
    > Institute: Locate a few rich benefactors who will pay the salaries
    > of
    > half a dozen or a dozen people whose entire job it will be to
    > promote this
    > one particular agenda by writing letters, articles, and books,
    > pushing
    > those books onto bookstore shelves, and traveling around the
    > country
    > giving lectures and debates to church and campus groups.
    >

    Loren,
    I fear you are overlooking the propaganda advantage these groups have.
    They present themselves as guarding the Bible against the hordes of
    evolutionists/materialists/scientists who are trying to destroy faith.
    Consider a pastor taught dogmatic inerrancy facing two options. One says
    that, if science is right, materialism is right and the Bible is wrong.
    The other says that a proper understanding of the Bible is compatible
    with what science learns of the universe. Which will the pastor choose?
    What about the run-of-the-mill individuals in the pew?

    Consider the financier who is interested in religion, but doesn't know
    much about it. One person tells him that they need to defend the Bible
    and faith from the assaults of government, science, unbelief, etc. The
    other tells him that they want to encourage church people to recognize
    the value of science. Who gets the grant? The shrill "embattled defenders
    of truth" gambit is so much more effective than the quiet rationality of
    investigation. This is why Johnson continues to lie that all science is
    dogmatically materialist and naturalist because it seeks natural causes:
    i.e., methodological naturalism is metaphysical naturalism. This is why
    CRI misrepresents history, as Michael has kept reminding us. This is why
    they also misrepresent debates about the mechanism of evolution as
    challenges to the basic teaching. The lies sell.

    There are, of course, dupes. But there are some who know they are lying
    and continue in order to maintain their advantage. If my memory serves, a
    group of scientists tackled a "creationist" speaker before his appearance
    in or near San Diego. He admitted to them that the "second law" did not
    preclude evolutionary development. Then he went out on stage and
    "preached it." As I recall, Jerry Albert told this to a group of ASAers
    at least 20-odd years ago. The "big lie" technique is at work to the
    extent that the general church population is beyond listening to anything
    but "creationism."

    I have to recognize fallibilism and the tentative nature of scientific
    theories. I expect that God will forgive and overrule our mistakes. But I
    do not know how anyone can expect to honor with lies the One who declared
    himself "the Truth." I also know whom he declared "the father of lies."
    Dave



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Aug 22 2003 - 16:23:09 EDT