First of all, I was *greatly* moved in finding other people with
intellectual honesty who are wrestling with empirical evidence that
contradict what the conservative evangelical Christian community (in
general), has been teaching us for decades. I know *noone* else who cares
to spend the time it takes to get to the bottom of conflicting claims. Even
people whom I respect greatly just plain don't let the facts get in the way
of their faith. Without you people, I would be totally alone in this. As
Kevin Koenig said, "Mr. Rauch, you are in the right place."
Bill Hamilton wrote:
> I can really identify with that -- most of it. The part about "not even
> sure if God is required" is one I might quibble about. My take on that
> issue is that I think _determining_ whether or not God is required is
> outside the scope of science. We can study objects and events in the
> material world. The existence of God and causal connections between the
> material world and God are far more difficult, if not totally outside the
> scope of what we can study. That's why God gave us the prophets, the
> Scriptures, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit: because we could not find
Him
> on our own.
It was hard to write, "not even sure if God is required." But I figured I
could be candidly honest here. I've come to realize that I am not going to
get the irrefutable proof of God's existence which I have been requiring of
Him. Perhaps His existence will be the most reasonable explanation. I *am*
fully convinced that there is no hope and no meaning outside Jesus. My goal
is to find my way back home; to end up with a firm and reasonable
(defensible) belief, that God is Good.
> [....] I ... started following talk.origins. Being a
> cautious fellow, I said little to get myself in trouble at first...
After I read *all* the talk.origins FAQ's, there was no more fight left in
me; I had nothing intelligent to say. All the irrefutable arguments the
conservative creationists had given me were refuted.
> [....] I was especially appalled at
> the creationist treatment of geology. I know enough physics to be able
to
> understand radiometric dating, and I was appalled at the way some of the
> creationists distort the geological literature to make it seem that
> geologists are stupid, careless or both.
Proud and shameful, isn't it?
On Friday, January 16, 1998 12:04 PM, Greg Billock
[SMTP:billgr@cco.caltech.edu] wrote:
[....]
> > I am now a believer in evolution
>
> I'd be interested in hearing a bit more about how this happened. What
was
> your experience like?
>
Here's the whole nine yards. I have been attempting to organize my thoughts
in writing. This is an excerpt. (It is formatted text)
The Problem (in chronological order): 08 June 1996, 22 September 1997
The goal is to end up with a firm and reasonable (defensible) belief,
GOD IS GOOD
1. My Church, which includes James Dobson of FotF, etc., has taught me, and
I believed, that if I do not believe in a literal 6-day creation, a global
flood, and special creation of all living things, the authority of the
Bible crumbles and I am an infidel. Once you admit any of these things, it
is a slippery slope to Hell. (I should note at this point that I have not
heard much about this in the last few years. But I have not heard much
Dobson in the last few years, either.)
2. In June of 1995, I read Fred Heeren's book, Show Me God: what the
message from space is telling us about God. Wonderful book. Old earth.
Compelling argumentation from design. Heeren stated the next volume in the
Wonders that Witness series would deal with evolution. I waited quite some
time for the volume (it is still not out).
3. I found out in reading the book, The Battle of Beginnings (an I.V.P.
book), that even the most conservative creation scientists no longer
believe in the special creation of all living things; but rather in the
special creation of "kinds" (and this is what Noah brought on the ark with
him, i.e., representatives of each "kind"). Upon release from the ark, the
rapidly evolved into the species we have today, and then evolution stopped.
To me, it felt as though we laity were allowed to believe things that the
learned conservatives have long since abandoned. I was left with
indefensible beliefs, and was, therefore, extremely vulnerable. I felt
betrayed, and still harbor a lot of bitterness, which for about a year
literally (by this I mean figuratively) was eating me alive. I suspect we
were not told (e.g., by a FotF decree) because it would attract attention
to the debate. And any attention to the debate would reveal the
conservative creationists's reasoning as trying to fit a square peg in an
obviously round hole.
4. Over the past few months (June 1996), I have come to believe in evolu
tion. In order to maintain integrity, and not go through the tortuous (and
torturous) intellectual gyrations (tortured reasoning) the conservative
creationists go through, the evidence forces me to admit that evolution has
occurred. I want to believe in the special creation of man, but I'm afraid
that that is not the case either. Evolution makes it all fit together
simply.
5. Now I can handle the problem of evolution. I reason that the first half
of Genesis definitely had a literal meaning for those who heard it, but
just like it was for many of the prophets, there are other meanings, too.
As prophesy is fulfilled in ways which the prophets did not understand, so
is the first part of Genesis a description of creation "as through a glass
darkly". I bring it up as being crucial because it is crucial to North
American (and possibly European) evangelicalism, and is symbolic and a
watershed issue for me.
6. Possibly the most problematic thing for me is the different genealogies
in Matthew and Luke. I can just ignore them (mentally cut them out of my
Bible). But where do I stop cutting?
I need a place to stop cutting which is reasonable, i.e., logically
defensible.
Scott Rauch (jdavita@netrax.net, www.netrax.net/~jdavita)
One should not attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity, AND
one should not attribute to stupidity what can be explained by ignorance.
(Wesley R. Elsberry in Talk.Origins Jargon,
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/jargon/jargon.html)