Re: [asa] YEC--What can we offer them?

Well said. Many of us went through the "change of mind" process from YEC to
something else. Each of our experiences was different so there's no fixed
recipe. I doubt if any of us had an instantaneous change. It took me almost
10 years, at least to the point of feeling comfortable about it.

Logic and scientific explanation are limited in effectiveness, though they
must be present. Other factors that influenced me:

--knowing respected Christians who were not YEC
--seeing how Christian faculty I trusted were misrepresented and maligned
(e.g. in the film "Footprints in Stone")
--as Jim points out, ruminating slowly over a long period of time about the
various arguments.

In particular, it took a long time to accept that so many devout Christian
YEC's could be wrong. Those not in the YEC camp could easily be dismissed as
liberals who had been deluded and deceived by the world. Can't trust them.
But the YEC's? That took time--and discovery of their treatment of people
and the facts.

By the way, I was fascinated a few months ago when perusing the ASA archives
at Wheaton. I came across quite a few letters in the 60's between Gish
and/or Morris and other ASA leaders at that time. Quite a history! Let's
just say that the email format wasn't the only enabler of personal attacks.
Wonder how future historians will be able to track email traffic to trace
the interactions.

Randy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro@qwest.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 2:21 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] YEC--What can we offer them?

> Here's my take on this problem. I think the essence of this matter is that
> neither of two conversing people who have strongly-held positions are
> likely at all to be "converted" on the spot by even the most skillfully
> and accurately crafted killer argument (which does not seem to exist in
> some generally applicable form). Whether the audience is one with
> strongly-held position, or is one which is relatively uninformed but
> biased by the position of the community of which they are a part, there is
> rarely a situation in which an "aha!" moment occurs in the midst of a
> conversation. Rather, any change that occurs is more likely to dawn in the
> natural and probably solitary process of ruminating over a body of
> information which appears sound, but which is to some degree at odds with
> components of ones World View (or belief system). Those kinds of changes
> by nature come slowly and usually with a fair amount of internal
> reflection.
>
> I remain convinced that the approach with the most promise over time is
> the offering of lines of evidence and sound arguments shaped to inform,
> but without the accoutriments of the usual "intent to convert" scenario.
> It seems rather like the jelly-jar opening process is appropos - slow and
> steady - that will in time prevail (if possible). this might take the form
> of solid technical information for some, or plausible argument to others.
> Perhaps a what's-wrong-with-this-picture approach would help some. For
> others, it might be the sheer number of independent lines of evidence for
> old universe age [astronomers alone have over a half-dozen independent
> lines of evidence that support old universe age; geologists have several
> additional independent lines of evidence; and so on]. I think an
> intentional compilation of such information in outline form might be
> helpful.
>
> As long as there is a clearly defined mutual hope and agenda of
> "conversion" present, guards are up. Ideally, these conversations should
> be un-loaded to every extent possible in order to allow the evidences or
> arguments to gently take root, and interact gently with existing held
> positions over time. This is a respectful approach, one which does not
> directly diminish a person or position. It does possibly take away the
> opportunity for a particular person to be the instrument of conversion.
> Accordingly, it's not perhaps as satisfying as the prospective outcome of
> intellectual jousting. Perhaps it has to be looked at more like an
> investment, wherein my part may be small or great - who can know?
>
> Or so it seemeth to me - JimA [a Friend of ASA].
>
>
> burden of necessary conversion". the approach which
>
> Michael Roberts wrote:
>
>> Gregory
>>
>> I do not know what your standards are for convincing. You have raised
>> doubt to an extreme artform in which discussion with anyone else is
>> impossible. There are aspects of science which are beyond question, the
>> age of the earth, heliocentricity, nuclear fission are just three. Others
>> aspects of science have a higher probability of being wrong - global
>> warming is one, though I am convinced it is happening, also snowball
>> earth in the late Precambrian. On both of these there is a significant
>> probability that they could be wrong, higher for snowball in fact..
>>
>> I would suggest that you argue with a bit more sense and give up your
>> posturing of questioning. You have argued like this for a long time and
>> simply do not want to listen to anyone who challenges your futile radical
>> doubt.
>>
>> The sooner your realise that in science there is a gradation for total
>> certainty (i.e. a scientific theory which is so well substantiated that
>> it is beyond question, though it can be a good thing to look into its
>> foundations as I did on geological ideas of time), through high
>> probability, medium probability right down to what is little more than
>> speculation with virtually no evidence to support it. Further evidence
>> can either substantiate or weaken any theory.
>>
>> Thus if you consider Snowball earth there is now no question that the
>> glacial sediments are a little older than the base of the Cambrian. That
>> was demonstrated 100 years ago. In the 70s when I was working on some of
>> them , half of geologists reckoned they were not glacial, but came round.
>> There could be a small question here. Now as for glaciation on all the
>> globe this is more tentative and it seems a reasonable idea but could
>> well be proved wrong.
>>
>> So on these three aspects of late Precambrian glaciation , there is no
>> probability that they are not that age, a little probability that they
>> are not glacial, and considerable probability that there was no Snowball
>> earth.
>>
>> I hope all this gives some idea of probability in science
>>
>> Michael
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gregory Arago"
>> <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
>> To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; "Christine
>> Smith" <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 10:48 PM
>> Subject: Re: [asa] YEC--What can we offer them?
>>
>>
>>> Thank you Michael for your answer, from a professional
>>> geological perspective. As you are surely aware, I was
>>> not suggesting that the earth is 'young.' Of course,
>>> you were making sure that I was not and am not
>>> suggesting that and now because of what I've just
>>> written you are confirmed.
>>>
>>> That being said, you only addressed one part of a
>>> three part question of mine that you quoted. The
>>> 'young birth' and 'interventions' parts are also very
>>> important for dialogue with YECs. Don't you agree? Is
>>> it because they are not only geological or theological
>>> questions that you refrained from offering an opinion?
>>> Is it because they are much more difficult than the
>>> age of earth question?
>>>
>>> "so we can say that there is no possibility that the
>>> earth is young." - M. Roberts
>>>
>>> I disagree. We can say there is a very low
>>> probability. We could even repeat 'very' several
>>> times. But we cannot (read: should not) say 'no
>>> possibility.' That would be excessive and there is no
>>> need to be excessive and frankly, 'science' does not
>>> pretend to that mantle. There are extra-geological
>>> views that can impact our probabilities and
>>> possibilities. We are all here who are discussing
>>> these things humans, after all (except perhaps if
>>> infiltrated by a chat-bot!).
>>>
>>> This reflects a similar grievance I take with
>>> 'universal evolutionism.' It is just excessive and not
>>> responsible to posit such a thing as 'science' or as
>>> 'theology'.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Gregory
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > > Christine, are you really asking how 'we' can
>>>> > >
>>>> > For example, as a geologist, Christine, is there
>>>> ANY
>>>> > possibility you would consider either a 'young'
>>>> > earth,' a 'young' birth of Adam and Eve (within
>>>> the
>>>> > last 10,000 years) or a view of 'science' that
>>>> > accomodates (or at least doesn't disqualify)
>>>> > 'interventions' by (a) creator God in 'natural
>>>> > processes'? In other words, are you 'closed' on
>>>> the
>>>> > viewpoint of an 'old' earth? Further, what are you
>>>> > willing to do to either avoid or appease conflict?
>>>> >
>>>> > >
>>>> > G. Arago
>>>>
>>>> I will answer Gregory. A geologist as a scientist
>>>> should have a questioning
>>>> and quizzical attitude to the age of the earth and
>>>> thus must be "open".
>>>>
>>>> One of the joys of doing the history of geology is
>>>> that you can see how this
>>>> open attitude worked itself out over 350 years or
>>>> so. They began with a
>>>> young earth - in an open way - as there was no
>>>> evidence against it and by
>>>> 1680 because of open minds many realised that the
>>>> earth was older than young
>>>> i.e 6000 years. The evidence convinced them.
>>>>
>>>> During the 18th century more evidence convinced
>>>> these open minded geologists
>>>> Christian or not and so by 1800 it was seen to be
>>>> either 100000 yrs or so or
>>>> even millions. By the 1820s when geology was
>>>> dominated by devout clergy
>>>> millions or "trillions" was the order of the day.
>>>> (trillions from Conybeare
>>>> an evangelical) In 1905 radioactivity was applied to
>>>> dating coming up first
>>>> with 2 billion and since 1946 the age has remained
>>>> constant at 4.6 billion.
>>>>
>>>> So today can I or anyone else consider a young earth
>>>> . Well theoretically
>>>> YES, but there have to be good arguments that
>>>> geologists have been wrong for
>>>> the last 300odd years and good evidence put in its
>>>> place. So far all the arguments against an old earth
>>>
>>> and for a young earth have been shown too be
>>> fallacious or even fraudulent, so we can say that
>>> there is no possibility that the earth is young.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> We could apply much the same type of argument to
>>>> consider the possibility that the earth is flat. The
>>>
>>> answer again is NO for reasons which should be so
>>> obvious.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This frankly is why any suggestion that the earth is
>>>> young - 10000yrs - is
>>>> simply absurd
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk
>>> email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail at
>>> http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jul 2 12:50:03 2007