> I haven't remained silent. When I contributed to the Bible-Science
> Newsletter (BSN), it was the only American creationist publication to
> report extensively on serious doubts about Dimitri Kuznetsov's
> citation practices. Glen Kuban and I tried a few years ago to enlist
> signatories for a statement of concern about Carl Baugh, with
> dismaying results (few people, despite their private anguish, wanted
> to go on the record). At a seminar with Kurt Wise in Chesapeake, VA,
> a couple of months ago, I devoted most of one of my talks to
> critiquing the lazy use of secondary or tertiary literature by many
> YEC authors.
>
> But look: there's sin aplenty everywhere in the origins debate. I've
> dished out abuse and mistaken claims. Stephen Jay Gould regularly
> tells people that the giant panda's thumb is suboptimal, despite
> having not a shadow of actual observational or comparative evidence
> for that assertion. Calumny is heaped on the heads of creationists
> for using theoretical distinctions -- e.g., between micro- and
> macro-evolution -- established by evolutionary biologists themselves.
> The list goes on. It would be funny if it weren't so overwhelmingly
> ugly.
>
> Everyone wants to be right. So: we see impatience, invective,
> backbiting... Still, some of us, involved with the Biola Mere
> Creation conference, are trying to find ways to build bridges among
> various parties. I'm hopeful, but I'm not kidding myself that the job
> will be easy.
Two points...
Yes, of course there's sin on both sides. But shouldn't born-again
evangelical Christians be held to a higher standard of truth and honesty
than atheists in this debate? When an evangelical Christian goes into print
with a book on origins, shouldn't they strive to make sure that the material
they present is honest, accurate, and free of misrepresentations? Shouldn't
they be held accountable if they're not? Bottom line, if an atheist like
Richard Dawkins makes fun of Christians I don't get upset because I don't
expect any better. If an evangelical Christian like Kenneth Ham, on the other
hand, presents a talk at a church where he mocks and ridicules scientists then
I do get upset because I do expect better from a brother in Christ (after all,
I spend my days doing scientific research and I know many scientists who are
committed Christians even though they're not YECs).
Secondly, I criticize many of the YECs because I feel that they ultimately
harm the cause of Christ by presenting the same faulty arguments over and over
and over again. Believe it or not, I also see some real problems with
evolutionary theory, have problems with abiogenesis, am concerned with the
prevalence of scientism and naturalism among many scientists, and see evidence
for intelligent design in the universe. But I can't really talk about these
issues with my colleagues because I'm branded as a YEC by them if I try. In
other words, I think YECs muddy the waters with ridiculous, discredited
arguments making it difficult to discuss legitimate problems in science.
Attempts to get YEC into public schools also creates a "circle the wagons"
mentality among many scientists who then dig in to defend their ideas even
more vehemently than before. Bottom line, most scientists don't just disagree
with YECs, they don't respect them either.
I think that YEC ultimately turns more away from Christ than it converts and
it does so over a non-essential doctrine.
- Steve.
-- Steven H. Schimmrich KB9LCG s-schim@uiuc.edu Department of Geology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 245 Natural History Building, Urbana, IL 61801 (217) 244-1246 http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/s-schim Fides quaerens intellectum