On Tue, 30 May 1995 19:19:53 -0500 you wrote:
>SC>>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...
>SJ>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."
SC>Of course they won't. Would you expect them to take Communion too?
No. But if God did in fact create the universe, life and life's major
groups, then scientist's materialist world-view will hinder
them from discovering it.
SC>Besides, if the majority of scientists know or care very little
>about the origins debate, why would they ever want to hear the other
>side of an issue that is already removed from them. This points to
>disinterest and not to conspiracy. I remain puzzled why this is so
>surprising to Christians.
Who said it was a "conspiracy" or that I am suprised?
SC>I have been lectured by Christians about genetics, how glaciers
>never existed, how the Grand Canyon was formed in 2 weeks, etc. (even
>on areas of my expertise). Unfortunately, vested disinterest in
>truth works in many directions.
No doubt.
>SJ>The other point that we often forget in our discussions of
>evidence for or against creation is the influence of sin and Satan.
>SC>Could this influence also affect the attitude of believers?
>SJOf course it applies to "believers"!
>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.
>
SC>I don't think we are at cross purposes. I understand from your
>previous posts that you don't consider yourself a fundamentalist, or
>a YEC, but you seem to promote your own brand of dogmatism that seems
>to me to serve to wall believers off from the natural world populated
>by scientists.
No. This is a carricature of what I am saying. I am not being
"dogmatic", except that I am a Christian and believe that the
Bible is God's special revelation to man. As I said when I first
joined this debate, my position is summed up by Phil Johnson:
"I am a philosophical theist and a Christian. I believe that a God
exists who could create out of nothing if He wanted to do so, but who
might have chosen to work through a natural evolutionary process
instead. I am not a defender of creation-science..."
(Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", Second Edition, 1993, Inter Varsity
Press, Illinois, p14).
I do not seek to "wall believers off from the natural world populated
by scientists." In fact I am trying to do the very opposite! It is
scientists in general who have walled off their science from the
possibility of Creation by their adoption of materialist-naturalist
philosophy.
>SC>An insistence by some that
>Christians must adhere to certain views of science supposedly compatible
>with faith, 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.
I don't insist that "Christians must adhere to certain views of
science". I am trying personally to understand science in the light of
what the Bible teaches. Where I think that science is in conflict
with the Bible, I ask questions.
SJ>You are fighting a different battle here, Steve. I am not a YEC.
>
SC>Ok, so I changed the wording to make my statement more inclusive.
I think you are still operating on a YEC stereotype of me. I am not
against evolution per se. If it could be proved, I would accept it as
the means by which God developed His creation. But I actually believe
the arguments for Darwinist macro-evolution to be weak. I thought
this forum existed to critique those arguments?
God bless.
Stephen
2Cor 10:5 "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that
exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into
captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ"