Re: [asa] Tom Willis, ex IBMer, speaks

I hope you don't mind my thoughts on this. [I skipped some of his statement to minimize the length.]

  A few years ago while in the opening minutes of my address to the Mensa* Convention, I was interrupted by a fellow who came to the front of the room, stood before the audience of several hundred and announced (paraphrase) "I'm a Christian too, but I believe in evolution, so you can be a Christian and believe in evolution. You don't have to believe what he is saying to be a Christian." Satisfied he had accomplished his important mission, he then sat down.

That event was unfortunate and without biblical example, except the negative example of the one that pestered Paul. Those who are obnoxious do little or no good to the faith they think they are promoting. "Before honor comes humility" (Prv 15:33), not hubris.

  I've heard this assertion so often, I call it the "I'm a Christian Too Proof" of evolution.

Does this statement not imply that he must be the reference Christian and the question before us is whether or not to accept the other coming before him as proof enough to be a "Christian too"? Perhaps I am too cynical but I can see where this is going.

  The fact that someone claims to be a Christian does not prove his/her ideas are sound. In short, even if a Christian does believe in evolution, that is not an argument for the truth of evolution. It proves only that the person claims to be a Christian, and claims to believe in evolution. Evolution must stand or fall in science on the basis of evidence. Their Christianity must stand or fall on the basis of the criteria Jesus established. The claim is irrelevant.

Agreed and nicely stated, but I would point out that this applies to any Christian, or individual, including those who do not believe in evolution. Their claim that evolution is false also "must stand or fall in science on the basis of evidence".

  First, the claim that the person is, in fact, a Christian must be weighed. You can sit in a garage all day and claim you are a car, but regardless of how fervently you claim it, your status as a non-car will not change.

I like this analogy, though its redundant use has less appeal. I am curious though if car manufactures are using evolutionary modeling in design like other manufacturers. Cars come from the efficacy of science. He would have been wiser to have chosen a non-scientific item like a rock or tree.

  Furthermore, only Jesus can define what a Christian is and he said, "Ye must be born again." Only those who are born again by the Spirit of God are Christians in any meaningful sense.

Fine, but this is not counter to evolutionary theory.

.But the most extensive passage is in the prayer of Jesus for unity among believers. Central to this prayer is the passage: "Holy Father ... Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth." Jesus makes it clear that his prayer applies to all followers through all time, and that Jesus wants all his followers to be sanctified (set apart) by God's Word. But, virtually no "Christian evolutionist" defends his position from God's word, simply because it cannot be done. Therefore, you can be certain that anyone claiming to be a Christian evolutionist is either immature in his walk, or a liar.

 [blue is mine]

Absurd! Did I not just read in this very paragraph an exhortation for the unity among believers? Somehow I feel less unitized. This sounds like he is stuck in a very crude and rude do loop: Do while .t.; Christian evolutionists can't defend from God's word; the reason is"simply because it cannot be done"; if you accept this argument - exit - else - Enddo.

His logic, unfortunately, is actually worse than the heckler's at the MENSA meeting! These are not scientific arguements in any imaginable sense.

  Mutations are clearly consistent with the "curse" the Bible says God placed on the entire creation. Paul calls it "the bondage to decay," which he says applies to the entire universe.

What about the mutations that bring forth improved forms? Are there good "curses"? This is hardly consistent with any of Paul's writings.

  Regarding adaptation, even man routinely builds automatic adaptation devices like the thermostat in your house and the Electronic Fuel Injection in your car. Thus, God who says His ways are much higher than ours can design automatic adaptation devices. Thus, mutations and adaptation are not only acceptable to Christianity, but are predicted by it.

Please help me with this statement, I thought mutations were "curses", regardless of transmission type (auto or manual). [Perhaps I have missed his point.]

  However, nowhere in God's Word can you find a hint of what some call Macro Evolution. There isn't one "Christian" evolutionist that can defend his stance for evolution on the basis of God's Word.

This is false, even little me can offer somewhat respectable arguments favoring a pro-evolutionists view that is concordant with scripture. This view, and others no doubt, happens to be one that answers very nicely why God is above reproach in any incest claims against Him. If evolved mankind existed as may have been revealed on the sixth day, then Cain would have a wife who would not be his sister. She could be from any age and ancestry found from mtDNA findings. Y-chromosome results, though limited, offer some hope for Adam as a possible founder of agriculture (prior mankind did not "till the soil").

I am not saying I am correct in this view, but I am saying his claim is erroneous. He's using word salad as a substitute for substance.

  They all do so on the basis of what they claim is science. It is my position that a "Christian" who believes in "progressive creation" or "macro evolution" does so in spite of the evidence of the Bible, and the evidence of science.

That is fine if we recognize he is expressing his right to hold that belief. Yet, science is not about beliefs, it is objective only and under its constraints. It is what science is about that allows a favorable support for evolutionary theory as it is strongly evidentiary, contrary to his belief that it is not supportive of it.

  An even more powerful passage is Revelation 17 in which the behavior, nature and destruction of the "harlot, Mystery Babylon" are discussed in detail. There are some differences of opinion about who this refers to, but nearly every commentator agrees that it refers to the false church and that this group will attack (throughout modern history) the true church. A more accurate description of "Christian evolutionists" is hard to find.

Alas, the stones are thrown at the "harlots".

  Conclusion:

  People who announce "I'm a Christian too" in Creation/Evolution discussions may be telling you something about their religion, but are telling you nothing about Christianity or the issue of whether evolution is good science.

Nuts. I would have liked, "We're a Christian two"; this would have been the better fruit and far more supportive of believer unity.

Helio

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jul 31 18:53:45 2007