Re: [asa] What Does ID Add?

I am afraid that my style is rather like Iain's but wont comment further.

I first read YEC literature while at L'abri with Francis Schaeffer in 1971. I was given the standard books by Morris, Whitcomb Davidheiser and others. I had just finished a 2 1/2 stint in Africa as an exploration geologist, so my geology was up to speed. As I began to read Morris I started to have doubts that all I had been taught about geology was plain wrong and that day was very disturbing. I slowly discovered that the whole of Morris's geology was based on misrepresentation, quotes out of context and I couldn't avoid the conclusion that he was wilfully dishonest. (When I hear that he admitted to an ASA member that it is OK to lie for the Kingdom of God I wasn't surprised.) Sadly I have found this kind of misrepresentation in almost every YEC work, and increasingly ID work I read.

It is not a case of mistakes. I have a classic case of this in that C A Coulson wrote in 1953 to my uncle, a clergy-physicist, criticising him for mistakes in chemistry in a book he wrote for 16-8 years olds. I found more on geology. i only read the letter a few months ago and gave Arie Leegwater a copy. These were bad mistakes, and he could have contacted his wife's brother in law to check the chemistry (my father). We have had a good chuckle about this but these were mistakes pure and simple .

What we have is systematic misrepresentation on many matters, which are then criticised privately and publicly but continue to be published. This is what you get over the "fraudulent photos" of Kettlewell of the peppered moth ,and the 3 1/2 billion year lavas which erupted in Hawaii in 1801. They have been challenged ad nauseam, with clear and reasonable arguments. Being mathematically and physically (as in physics) challenged I cannot comment on Humphrey's cosmology but Iain's presentation is what I have found in matters geological.

What we have is systematic distortion and a refusal to correct matters.

As Iain said "This is disgraceful and totally dishonest". What else can I say?

I look forward to the day when I read a YEC work and find it to be honest.

I don't know how you put this over to evangelicals at large, but the Devil is having a wonderful time.

Michael
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Iain Strachan
  To: Peter Loose
  Cc: Michael Roberts ; David Opderbeck ; AmericanScientificAffiliation
  Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 10:26 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] What Does ID Add?

  Peter,

  Michael wasn't using ad hominem, which would have been a direct attack on you.

  Frankly, I don't like Michael's viciously sarcastic style - I have challenged him for it on this list, and been called "St. Iain" for it. Michael clearly needs to do some growing up.

  However, the accusations of dishonesty on the part of organisations like AiG are perfectly justifiable. Did you read my post about the Humphreys cosmology? AiG are still pushing it, despite it being demonstrated, first by a letter to the Tech Journal, and later with a paper of over 160 equations that I helped to check. This paper was by a another YEC who is at least honest. He had no intellectual commitment to Darwinism, and remains a staunch YEC. Yet they have totally ignored his work, and continue to support this completely false theory.

  That is disgraceful and totally dishonest. I'm not making some sort of ad hominem attack. I'm just telling the truth. If you continue to ignore this, then you are indeed condoning dishonesty.

  Iain

  On 9/9/07, Peter Loose <peterwloose@compuserve.com> wrote:

    Michael,

    For the record, again, I will say nothing more about fraud or matters of that sort in the way you pose the issues. Ad-hominem is a style to be shunned is it not?

    There is law and there is grace. Shall we as a matter of general principle err on the side of grace perhaps? There is fine precedent for that: "Let him that is without sin cast the first stone." You know the context.

    You choose to judge and declare publicly that I condone lying. You are of course free to make whatever deductions you please: I am not troubled either way. Those deductions of yours are largely speculative and may, or may not, have anything to do with my actual position. Silence does not automatically mean consent.

    I rather think Michael that you ought by now to know very well what is meant by 'Darwinism'. So far as I know, having been involved with the subject for about fifty years, I have no private interpretation of that well used term. Don't others seem to have understood my question?

    Peter

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Roberts
    Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 1:29 PM
    To: Peter Loose; 'David Opderbeck'; 'AmericanScientificAffiliation'
    Subject: Re: [asa] What Does ID Add?

    Peter

    Before you pose more questions please consider the accusations of fraud in connection with the Peppered Moth I highlighted.

    It is clear that you do not wish to consider them and thus you are condoning lying. How do you reconcile this with your claim to be a Christian?

    As for your question it can be easily answered. Who are the Christians identified strongly with Darwinism? I can't name any, except those possibly in the sea of Faith group - who don't understand Darwin anyway.

    Also what do you mean by Darwinism?

    Michael

      ----- Original Message -----

      From: Peter Loose

      To: 'David Opderbeck' ; 'AmericanScientificAffiliation'

      Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 9:09 AM

      Subject: RE: [asa] What Does ID Add?

      David:

      May I pose the same form of question as you concluded with?

      "Why is it seemingly important for many Christians to identify strongly with Darwinism?"

      This is looking for much more than one-liner quick quips.

      Thank you

      Peter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

      From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of David Opderbeck
      Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 1:23 AM
      To: AmericanScientificAffiliation
      Subject: [asa] What Does ID Add?

      I'd particularly like to hear from folks who are sympathetic to ID and OEC -- what do you think ID adds with respect to relating science, faith and scripture?

      As I read materials from OEC's who are sympathetic to ID and hesitant or antagonistic about TE, I often feel a sort of disconnect. When discussing the age of the earth, OEC's mention all sorts of things about God revealing himself through nature as well as through scripture, doing our best to take all of God's revelation together, not interpreting scripture in ways that seem to clearly contradict well established scientific findings, and so on. And yet, when the same folks talk about evolution and ID, the discussion seems to change entirely -- now the discussion on the scientific side is all about questioning the assumptions of science, scientism, and so forth.

      I'm trying to understand why so many OEC's find it so important to critique "macro"evolution in this fashion. As far as I'm concerned, the most vexing problems with a TE position -- death before the fall, theodicy, who / what / when was Adam, the fall, original sin, what / when was the flood, what is the present "groaning" of creation, how will creation be renewed or "restored" in the eschaton -- are equally difficult whether one is an OEC or a TE. So why is "macro"evolution such a dividing line for most OEC's?

      Two things come to my mind: (1) ID might help support certain concordist "day-age" views that require sudden developmental jumps in kinds of animals; and (2) ID might serve as a useful apologetic device against folks who think evolution gets rid of God. Is there anything else? Particularly for OEC's who are open to "framework" and other understandings of Genesis 1 and 2, is the potential apologetic value of ID worth the candle of the divide between OEC-ID and TE?

      Note -- I'm not asking for critiques of the vaucousness or non-vaucousness of ID. I'm more interested in a question of identity -- why is it seemingly important for many OEC's to identify strongly with ID?

      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.9/994 - Release Date: 07/09/2007 16:40

    No virus found in this incoming message.
    Checked by AVG Free Edition.

    Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.10/995 - Release Date: 08/09/2007 13:24

  --
  -----------
  After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.

  - Italian Proverb
  -----------

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Sep 9 18:38:26 2007