From: richard@biblewheel.com
Date: Thu Sep 11 2003 - 13:11:17 EDT
>For those who would just dismiss ID assertions
>as ridiculous, they would find themselves in the
>same camp as those who have poo-pooed
>radical new scientific theories in the past.
Or worse, a radical new vision of the supernatural unity of the Holy Bible.
The reaction to my work here on ASA has basically followed this pattern:
1) Outright Dismissal
2) Contemptuous Mockery
3) Utter Silence and Refusal to Engage.
So lets try this one more time. I have two questions:
1) Can anyone on this list find a fundamental flaw or systematic error in my research?
2) Can anyone on this list design a book superior to the sevenfold circular symmetry seen in the Holy Bible?
Richard
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at http://www.BibleWheel.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Petermann
To: Ted Davis ; allenroy@peoplepc.com ; gmurphy@raex.com
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: Tit for Tat?
Ted wrote:
> Is is spiritually dangerous to teach YEC or TE, or some other position on
> origins?
I think the same question could be asked about scientific materialism or
methodological naturalism. If those approaches are taught as dogma, there
is, in my opinion, a spiritual risk of fatalism, extreme relativism, or
nihilism. On the other hand religious positions that stand in stark
contrast to our scientific take on reality, can create a spiritual crisis
for individuals who later in life find those positions unreasonable. That
can lead to a disillusionment and rejection of religion, per se.
Seems to me what should be emphasized about origins in public education is
that *no* theory of origins is without its problems, discuss the problems
then let the kids and their parents decide for themselves. If anything the
ID discussions have raised important questions about the completeness of
Darwinian theory. For those who would just dismiss ID assertions as
ridiculous, they would find themselves in the same camp as those who have
poo-pooed radical new scientific theories in the past.
Regards,
Steve Petermann
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 11 2003 - 13:09:51 EDT