>Stephen, you wrote,
>
>No doubt this applies in "normal" science. But we are talking about
>"origin" science. Scientists who are wedded to a materialist
>world-view will probably never listen to creationist-alternatives.
>They deny apriori that God exists and therefore creation is possible.
>If scientists deny that "The heavens declare the glory of God" (Ps
>19:1), then no amount of evidence will convince them of creation.
>
>The distinction between "origin" and "normal" science is not very useful.
>The vast majority of scientists know and care very little about the origins
>debate. By fighting with Dawkins, et al., you reach a very small population
>of scientists. An informal poll taken here at UW, among faculty and
>students, suggested that the biggest hinderance to faith is the perception
>that it has nothing to offer, not that it takes something (evolution) away.
Well, this only serves to confirm my point IMHO: "Scientists who are
wedded to a materialist >world-view will probably never listen to
creationist-alternatives."
>The other point that we often forget in our discussions of evidence
>for or against creation is the influence of sin and Satan. I know
>this does not change the evidence, but it does affect the attitude of
>unbelievers in accepting the evidence.
>
>Could this influence also affect the attitude of believers? To
>automatically assume (in this case by ommission) that in the
>evolution/creation debate believers are not affected by sin and satan, is
>rather frightening.
Of course it applies to "believers"!
>I totally agree! But our "sacred obligation not to lead them astray"
>is in the context of *salvation*, not whether they are up-to-date with
>the latest scientific theory. Even if Creation-Science is wrong
>regarding scientific matters (eg. 24-hour creation and a global
>Flood, etc), as I believe they are, at least they are trying to
>preserve the faith of Christ's "little ones" (Mt 18:6). If Creation-
>Science or Progressive Creationists are wrong regarding evolution but
>are right regarding God, then it is the latter on which they will be
>judged. The former, after all, is just part of "this world in its
>present form" which "is passing away" (1Cor 7:31).
>
>How can you assume that creationists, or evolutionists for that matter, are
>concerned about anything other than themselves if they are not first
>concerned about truth. Truth and orthodoxy are two different things and I
>think God cares much less about the orthodoxy of one's view on origins than
>what is in one's heart when arguing about the topic. Jesus made perfectly
>clear to the Pharisees that even God's wishes and commands can become
>unrighteous when they are misused and held over people. I fear that much of
>the creation argument goes this way for Christians. In some circles it has
>become a standard of orthodoxy by which faith is measured and this, in turn,
>has become an artificial stumbling block to many unbelievers. Keeping in
>mind that God intended Christ to be that rock of offense, I fail to see how
>the orthodoxy of creation-science preserves the faith of Christ's little ones.
I think we are debating at cross-purposes. I do not live in the USA
and we do not have a strong Christian "orthodoxy" here. I am not a
fundamentalist. I am committed to truth, but if I had to chose
(because of human finiteness) I would rather be wrong in my science
than in my salvation.
>I am afraid that we lead the little ones astray when we put unintended
>stumbling blocks in their way. An insistence by some churches, that
>believers MUST adhere to a young-earth creationism, elevates this whole
>debate to a pedestal on which it should not stand. This is as bad (perhaps
>worse) as evolutionists claiming they have proven that God does not exist.
You are fighting a different battle here, Steve. I am not a YEC.
Stephen