On Sat, 16 May 1998 21:30:02 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
[...]
>SJ>But my argument is not that these Christian apologists should not be
>>corrected if they are wrong, but you never say anything *positive*
>>about them. You attack your fellow Christians with a hostility that is
>>relentless. I cannot square this with the New Testament understanding
>>of how Christians are to think and act.
GM>Stephen, I will admit to being very discouraged at this moment.
I am not surprised. You are on a hiding to nothing with your entirely
negative attacks on Christian apologists. If you are trying to impress the
non-Christians, then you are just reinforcing their beliefs that Christianity
is false. And you are certainly not impressing many Christians.
GM>The discouragment comes from my general observation that we
>believers would rather postulate that the entire body of observational
>evidence is wrong than question our interpretation of the Bible.
This is too sweeping a claim. No "believers" that I know of claim that
"the entire body of observational evidence is wrong".
GM>And the more liberal branch of Christianity would rather believe that
>the Scripture is unhistorical or untrue whenever the observational data
>goes against an interpretation of scripture.
This too `black-and-white'. Between the ICR and liberals there is a large
number of conservative evangelical Christians like myself who have no
major problems with "the observational data" and my "interpretation of
scripture.
GM>Both approaches to this issue makes the Bible questionable as far
>as its ability to relate truth. I will only applaud when conservative
>Christians cease running from observation, and liberal christians cease
>surrendering historicity in what should be the word of God.
This is just a straw man. Your reading of "conservative Christians" to
date seems to be primarily YECs. You need to broaden your horizon and
read some modern conservative theologians like Pinnock, Blocher,
Bloesch, etc.
But interestingly, when some "conservative Christians" do deal with the
"observational data" like Mike Behe, and Phil Johnson, you criticise them
too. This shows that your *real* problem is with *any* Christians who
question evolution.
>SJ>Well how about it Glenn? "Do you go regularly to church? Do you
>>read the Bible and pray regularly? Do you pray for your `enemies' like
>>Morris, Gish, Ross and Johnson?"
GM>Yes actually I do pray for them and for the day that Christians will
>cease running from observational facts like chickens run from foxes.
I find this vague answer unconvincing. I will from now on assume that:
1. You don't "go regularly to church"
2. You don't "read the ible and pray regularly"
3. You don't "pray for your `enemies' like Morris, Gish, Ross and
Johnson"
If I am wrong in the above assumptions, please say so. Otherwise,
whenever you attack Christian apologists destructively I may remind
those reading your posts of these facts so they can know where you are
coming from.
GM>I don't want dishonour brought upon Christianity in any form.
You have a funny way of going about it. By destructively criticising all
Christian apologists, you have the effect of bringing "dishonour...upon
Christianity." A non-Christian will quite reasonably think that if all the
leading Christian apologists are wrong, then Christianity must be wrong.
GM>But until we christians are will to TRUST GOD that He is able to
>handle any observational data AND to TRUST GOD that His word is
>true in more than an allegorical or metaphyscial sense
This is another straw man. Read some modern evangelical theologians
like Blocher, Bloesch, and Pinnock, before you set yourself up as an
authority on Biblical interpretation. Your problem is you see everything
in black-and-white, as though there is nothing in between a literal and an
allegorical interpretations of the Bible. Read some Old Testament
theologians like Von Rad, Eichrodt and Kaiser, who grapple with other
genres like saga and legend.
GM>Christian apologists, in my opinion, will continue to bring dishonour
>upon the Bible by either making the bible say things that can't possibly
>be true or by starting with the assumption that the Bible is untrue
>historically and thus has little connection with the real world.
I've got news for you Glenn. The non-theists you continually side with
against your fellow Christians think the Bible is just the creation-myths of
a bunch of nomad farmers. It is *impossible* to "dishonour" the Bible in
their eyes, because they don't honour it in the first place.
GM> If what we teach makes the Bible false, or if we teach that the Bible
>IS false, then we have done great damage to the foundations of
>Christianity. And for me to say that Johnson has done a good job with
>science, when he hasn't would not be true.
Johnson hardly discusses the Bible:
"I am not a defender of creation-science, and in fact I am not concerned
in this book with addressing any conflicts between the Biblical accounts
and the scientific evidence." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993,
p14); "One thing I am not doing is taking sides in a Bible-science
conflict." (Johnson, 1993, p157);
so it is evident that your *real* agenda is defending *evolution* by
discrediting any Christian apologists who attacks it. Your claim to be
trying to save the honour of the Bible is just a smokescreen, although it is
possible that you really believe it.
GM>Ross does an excellent job with astronomy. Ross does an excellent
>job with the age of the universe. Did you notice Stephen, I said
>something nice about Ross.
Keep it up, and I'll revise my opinion!
GM>He does an abysmal job when it comes to anthropology though.
>Absolutely absysmal.
Coming from someone who claims that Adam and Noah existed 5.5 mya,
the claim that "Ross...does an abysmal job when it comes to
anthropology" is a bit rich!
In any event, I dispute that Ross does an "abysmal job when it comes to
anthropology". Your problem is that you don't understand Ross'
emphasis on the mark of full humanity being able to experience a
relationship with God:
"In Genesis 1, God speaks of adham (male and female), and only adham,
as being made in His image. The point is emphasized by repetition. As
humanity's story unfolds through subsequent chapters, we discover that
what makes humans different is a quality called "spirit." None of the rest
of Earth's creatures possesses it. By "spirit" the Bible means awareness of
God and capacity to form a relationship with Him. Worship is the key
evidence of the spiritual quality of the human race, and the universality of
worship is evidenced in altars, temples, and religious relics of all kinds.
Burial of dead, use of tools, or even painting do not qualify as evidence
of the spirit, for non-spirit beings such as bower birds, elephants, and
chimpanzees engage in such activities to a limited extent. Bipedal tool-
using, large-brained primates (called hominids by anthropologists) may
have roamed the earth as long ago as one million years, but religious
relics and altars date back only 8,000 to 24,000 years. Thus, the secular
archaeological date for the first spirit creatures is in complete agreement
with the biblical date." (Ross H., "Creation and Time", NavPress:
Colorado Springs CO, 1994, pp140-141).
I don't necessarily agree with Ross fully, but I support his honest and
courageous efforts to integrate science and the Bible.
>SJ>f you keep evading this then I will conclude that while you may be a
>>"believer", you are not one who is living what mainstream evangelical
>>Christianity would regard as a normal Christian life. I will then have no
>>alternative but to regard your attacks on godly Christian leaders like
>>Phil Johnson and Hugh Ross as manifestations of this lack, and I will
>>discount them accordingly.
GM>I will give you this right now, Stephen. I obviously am not in the
>mainstream of Christian thought.
My point was that if you don't regullarly go to Church, read your Bible
and pray, then you are not even "living ...a normal Christian life"!
GM> I want a concordistic scenario that actually allows the Bible to be
>true AND explains the data of Science.
The problem is that you don't even read any modern evangelical
theologicans like Pinnock, Bloesch or Blocher who address these issues.
You keep assuming that the ICR is the last word in Christian apologetics.
GM>Johnson offers NO scenario whatsoever to relate geology or
>paleontology to the Bible
Why should he? That is not what he is on about. Johnson provisionally
accepts the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, and sees no problem in relating
"geology or paleontology to the Bible." His argument is against the
Darwinist `blind watchmaker' thesis, not for any particular interpretation
of Genesis.
GM>and Ross offers a flawed scenario.
What about *your* "flawed scenario"? Attend to the plank in your own
eye first!
GM>If they are mainstream, then I am not and am glad not to be there.
>They really offer no successful explanations for the data of this world
>within a Christian perspective.
See above. Johnson doesn't even attempt Bible-science "explanations"
and you admit that Ross "does an excellent job with astronomy." Your
criticisms are out of all proportion. Your *real* problem with Johnson
and Ross is that they criticise *evolution*.
>>GM>I also believe that above all, Christians, who are under the
>>>Lordship of Christ, should NOT engage in sloppy scholarship, sloppy
>>>research, sloppy logic and they should not be unwilling to correct
>>>what they say when they are shown to be wrong.
>SJ>If you don't go to church, read your Bible and pray, then you are
>>"wrong" in a far more important sense than these "Christians" you
>>attack are.
GM>I go to church, was there last week.The sermon touched upon life's
>failures. It meant a lot to me in light of my failure to get my fellow
>believers to understand what they are doing to Christianity. And yes, I
>read my Bible. It is quite marked up even dirty on the edges where the
oil >from my hands have stained the pages. But Stephen, none of this
proves >anything.
I am glad to hear it. But you still have not answered my questions. Going
to church once in a while and having an oil-stained Bible that you read
while oil-drilling proves little. I find your answers evasive and not up to
the high standards of truth and honesty that you are relentless in
demanding of other Christians.
GM>Truth can be expounded even by an atheist.
Agreed, but "truth" about *God* and His relationship with the world
can't be " expounded...by an atheist."
>SJ>But that is not what *really* "bothers" you. Jim Bell once said you
>>were fighting an "inner war with the ICR", and I agree, except I would
>>make it wider than that. Your "inner war" seems to be with *all*
>>"Christian apologists"!
GM>Yes it is. I sincerely want Christians to cease making factually false
>statements.
What you *really* want is that they cease making statements against
*evolution*.
GM> As I noted, when Johnson says that rodents gave rise to whales
>and bats he displays a lack of knowledge about paleontology that makes
>a paleontologist dismiss him as another ignorant Christian.
As I have pointed out (but which you just ignore) in context Johnson was
using the same word that paleontologist Steven Stanley used. Even
paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in his `hatchet job' review of Darwin
on Trial, did not pick on this (although he did on others). You are
scraping the bottom of the barrel on this one and showing your true
colours.
GM>When Ross says that art and spirituality are no older than (because
>the Bible would be wrong if spirituallity is older than this)
You have made this claim before, and I have challenged you on it. Where
exactly does Ross say that "the Bible would be wrong if spirituallity is
older than... 60 kyr".
GM>and I can point to at least 3 religious objects and altars
>manufactured prior to this time, are we to conclude that the Bible is
>wrong? or should we conclude that the data doesn't exist?
I cannot remember you posting anything about "religious objects and
altars manufactured prior to" Perhaps you could refresh my memory
regarding these by posting references to them again.
If: 1) there really *are* "religious objects and altars manufactured prior
to" 60 kyr"; and 2) "religious objects and altars" are evidence of true
"spirituallity" (ie. a relationship with God); then Ross would have to
revise his *interpretation* of Genesis 1-11.
>>GM>That is why Philip Johnson saying that rodents gave rise to
>>>whales bothers me (Phillip E. Johnson, "A Reply to My Critics: The
>>>Evolution Debate Continued," First Things, November, 1990, p. 52).
>>>That is why it bothers me when Johnson says that rodents gave rise
>>>to bats
>>>("A Darwinist can imagine that a mutant rodent might appear with a
>>>web between its toes...leading eventually to winged
>>>flight."~Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 2nd ed. (Downer's
>>>Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1993), p. 104)
>SJ>Why should this "bother" you? In the context, Johnson had already
>>quoted Steven Stanley using the word "rodent" in respect of bat's
>>common ancestor:
>>"...A chain of ten or fifteen of these might move us from one small
>>RODENT like form to a slightly different one, perhaps representing a
>>new genus, but not to a bat or a whale!' (Stanley S.M, "The New
>>Evolutionary Timetable". 1981, Basic Books, NY, p. 71) (Johnson
>>P.E., "Darwin on Trial," 1993, p51. My emphasis)
GM>But Stephen, the use of the word 'rodent' is NOT consistent with
your >thesis that rodents gave rise to bats. In fact Stanley says just the
>opposite. I fail to understand how you mis-read this statement! Stanley
>said a rodent COULDN"T be the ancestor of bats or whales. You need
>to re-read this. I stand by what I said. Bats came from the insectivores
>NOT the rodents. Whale came from mesonychids, not rodents.
It is *you* who "mis-read" Stanley. He says quite clearly that "mammals
descended from animals resembling small rodents:
"When the mammals inherited the Earth, the result was spectacular. Their
great adaptive radiation was recent enough that the fossil evidence for it
is impressive. Within perhaps twelve million years, most of the living
orders of mammals were in existence, all having descended from simple,
diminutive animals that might be thought of as resembling small
RODENTS, though not all possessed front teeth specialized for gnawing.
Among the nearly twenty new orders were the one that contains large
carnivorous animals, including modern lions, wolves, and bears; the one
that comprises horses and rhinos; and the one that includes deer, pigs,
antelopes, and sheep. Most of the orders evolved in even less than twelve
million years. Perhaps the most spectacular origins were of the bats,
which took to the air, and the whales, which invaded the sea." (Stanley
S.M., "The New Evolutionary Timetable", 1981, p93. My emphasis)
>SJ>I fail to see why this should "bother" you (apart from your need
>>to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find something to attack
>>Christian apologists).
GM>Clearly your standard of truth is different from mine.
Yes. You have a *double* "standard"! You "scrape the bottom of the
barrel" to find *anything* to destructively attack Christian apologists
who criticise evolution, while at the same time turning a blind eye to all
those evolutionary apologists who criticise Christianity.
But in this case, you are not even speaking "truth". The fact is that
Johnson is using the same word "rodent" that leading palaentologist
Steven Stanley uses.
>SJ>So what exactly is your point Glenn (apart from trying to denigrate
>>Christian apologists like Johnson at every opportunity)?
GM>Let me ask something. Does Johnson, in your opinion, speak ex
>cathedra (that is infallibly)?
No, but you seem to think that *you* do, in destructively criticising
"Johnson"!
If you are not regulalry going to church, reading the Bible and praying,
then you have spiritual issues that you need to personally deal with before
destructively critcising godly Chisrian leaders like Hugh Ross and Phil
Johnson.
>>GM>Pseudogenes were around for over 10 years but were not
>>>discussed in antievolutionary literature until the past couple of years.
>SJ>So what? All discilines are affected by what Denton (Kuhn?) called
>>"the priority of the paradigm". Christian apologists are slowly coming
>>to grips with scientific issues.
GM>This is my point Stephen, they are SLOWLY coming to grips. Why
>should Christians be slower than non-Christians to come to grip with
>new data? Why are we the ones who wait 10-20 years before telling the
>laity about some new discovery?
There is no evidence that "Christians" are "slower than non-Christians to
come to grip with new data." Christian *theologians* may be slower than
non-Christian *scientists* to come to grips with new scientific data, but
that's because they are primarily theologians, not scientists.
Also, Christian leaders have a responsibility to their congregations not to
prematurely embrace a scientific theory that later on could become
discredited.
In any event, as you now admit, Christian apologists *are* coming to
grips with scientific issues. This is acknowledged by theistic evolutionist
Del Ratzsch:
"But there is barely beginning to emerge a new generation of creationists
with legitimate and relevant credentials who are undertaking to actually
do some of the painstaking, detailed drudgery that underlies any
genuinely live scientific program...I think that what ultimately separates
the two tiers is different levels of respect for accuracy and completeness
of detail, and different levels of awareness that a theory's looking good in
vague and general form is an enormously unreliable predictor of whether
in the long run the theory will be disemboweled by recalcitrant technical
details. That appreciation is something that typically comes only with a
legitimate scientific education, which some of the creationist popularizers
and many in their audiences lack." (Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of
Beginnings," 1996, p82)
"The newly emerging upper tier of the creationist movement, however,
seems to have little patience with the vague popularized treatments and
is, again, undertaking to do the meticulous detail work that a genuinely
scientific creationism requires. As yet, this upper tier is not associated
with any particular organization. Although it is a bit too early to tell
much, some shape is beginning to emerge. A loose coalition is forming
around a few key books-The Mystery of Life's Origins and The Creation
Hypothesis, for instance. (Some other works, such as Johnson's Darwin
on Trial and Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, have served as
catalysts.) Most of this group's present work seems to fall into three
areas: (1) constructing a competent philosophy of science defense for the
legitimacy in science of the hypothesis that life embodies design and
structure not well accountable by purely natural means; (2) exploring
detailed technical- and perhaps ultimately intractable-problems with
attempts to explain relevant data, structures and events (like the origin of
life) by purely natural means; and (3) attempting to construct rigorous,
legitimately scientific positive cases for creationist positions (such as
design theory) in various areas of conflict with mainstream theory. It is,
again, a bit early to tell where all this may come out. But those in the
emerging upper tier are starting out with serious credentials (Ph.D.s from
Cambridge, Harvard, the University of Chicago and Berkeley, for
instance) in relevant areas (such as philosophy of science, paleontology,
chemistry, mathematics) and with a recognition that shortcuts will not do.
Future work produced-whether right or wrong-is not likely to be either
uninformed or more polemical than substantive." (Ratzsch, 1996, pp84-
85)
Even non-theists are admitting this:
"The Creation Hypothesis received a remarkably respectful review in
Creation/Evolution, a strongly anticreationist journal. Reviewer Arthur
Shapiro, professor of zoology at the Davis campus of the University of
California, concluded with this paragraph:
`I can see Science in the year 2000 running a major feature article on the
spread of theistic science as a parallel scientific culture. I can see
interviews with the leading figures in history and philosophy of science
about how and why this happened. For the moment, the authors of The
Creation Hypothesis are realistically defensive. They know their way of
looking at the world will not be generally accepted and that they will be
restricted for a while to their own journals. They also know that they will
be under intense pressure to demonstrate respectability by weeding out
crackpots, kooks and purveyors of young- earth snake oil. If they are
successful, the day will come when the editorial board of Science will
convene in emergency session to decide what to do about a paper which
is of the highest quality and utterly unexceptionable, of great and broad
interest, and which proceeds from the prior assumption of intelligent
design. For a preview of that crisis, you should read this book. Of course,
if you are smug enough to think "theistic science" is an oxymoron, you
won't.'
(Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance," 1995, p239)
GM>The atheists are eager to tell our children yesterday's discovery that
>contradicts their interpretation of the Bible.
The operative words are "their *interpretation* of the Bible".
GM>It seems to me that we are slow for two reasons: we don't have
>answers and so don't want people to know this and we fail to read the
>latest scientific material.
Who is the "we" you are talking about? How do you *know* that
Christian apologists "fail to read the latest scientific material"? I am
impressed by the depth of knowledge of "the latest scientific material" in
Christian apologists like William Lane Crag and Richard Swinburne.
Have you ever read any of their works?
The average Christian apologist knows a lot more about science than the
average evolutionary apologist knows about theology. Why aren't you
evenhanded and criticise evolutionary apologists for their failure to read
the latest theological material?
GM> The book Johnson used as his main paleo reference was a 1985
>reprint of a 1974 vertebrate paleo book. Johnson was using material 20
>years out of date as his primary source.
I assume you are talking about Stahl's "Vertebrate History: Problems in
Evolution", Dover 1985? First of all, Johnson only mentions Stahl
*once* briefly in the body of Darwin on Trial (p76), and only twice
briefly in his notes (pp190,191). Hardly a "main paleo reference".
Secondly, Stahl's 1985 book is not a reprint but a *revised and enlarged*
edition:
"This Dover edition, first published in 1985, is a REVISED AND
ENLARGED republication of the work first published by the McGraw-
Hill Book Company, New York, 1974. The Dover edition includes a new
Preface, NOTES UPDATING THE ORIGINAL TEXT, and
Supplementary References, ALL PREPARED BY THE AUTHOR."
(Stahl B.J., "Vertebrate history: Problems in Evolution," [1974], Dover:
New York, 1985 revised, pp.iii-iv. My emphasis.)
GM>Surely Christians can do better than that. In 1991 when Johnson
>published Carroll's 1988 Vertebrate paleontology was on the library
>shelves waiting to be read.
What in particular are you claiming that Johnson quoted from Stahl
(1985) that is contradicted by Carroll (1988)?
GM>But he didn't.No wonder he didn't know the latest although I will
>tell you that as far back as my paleo books go, (back to the 40's) bats
>have been suggested to come from the insectivores and whales from
>the mesonychids.
And where do you think that "the insectivores" and "mesonychids" came
from? "...from simple, diminutive animals that might be thought of as
resembling small rodents" (Stanley S.M., "The New Evolutionary
Timetable", 1981, p93)
>>SJ>Part of the reason is that it is often hard to work out what exactly
>>*is* the current scientific view of anything, so rapidly do scientific
>>theories change.
GM>We could do that better if we depended upon 1988 books rather
>than reading reprints of a 1974 textbook. One obviously can not learn
>the latest science by reading OLD science books. Surely you understand
>that.
See above. Stahl's 1985 book was not a "reprint of a 1974 textbook". It
was fully revised. I suspect these latest half-baked criticisms of Johnson
come second-hand from an atheistic evolutionary source like talk.origins.
If so, you need to be less gullible and check their claims.
>SJ>I said before, that the *real* problem is your lack of *love* for
>>"apologists":
GM>I have love for the apologist, but no love for what they are doing to
>christianity.
I find it difficult to take you seriously, Glenn. You apparently don't go
regularly to church, you apparently don't read your Bible and pray
regularly, you apparently don't read modern Christian theologians, you
relentlessly attack leading Christian apologists, yet you claim that you are
concerned "what they are doing to christianity". Give us a break! If you
"have love for the apologist", I wouldn't like to see you expressing
hatred. With friends like you, Christian apologists don't need enemies!
>>GM>Stephen, it is no crime to ask Christians to get their facts correct.
>>>To make the kinds of mistakes that we do makes our Lord, our
>>>religion and us, look foolish.
>SJ>This is your usual line by which you justify your vendetta against all
>>Christian apologists. But I believe it is only a pretext. Otherwise
>>you would also say *positive* things about them too.
GM>So are you saying that it is OK to teach incorrect facts? James 3:1
>says that teachers are held to a stricter standard. I would presume that
>this means a higher standard of truth.
It applies to you *too*, you know. You don't even live up to your own
"standard of truth" you set for others! You continually trot out untrue
claims against Christian apologists like Johnson and Ross, and then
ignore it when I point out that your claims are false.
>SJ>In any event, your constant denigration of those Christian apologists
>>like Johnson and Ross who could help them (as they have helped
>>thousands) makes the situation worse, not better. None of the atheists
>>on this Reflector over the last 2-3 have been impressed in the slightest
>>by *your* halfbaked solutions, like your 5.5 mya Adam/Noah theory,
>>which does not even agree with science, let alone Christianity.
GM>I am not trying to impress atheists. I am trying to prevent the
>manufacture of more of them by Christians leaving the fold because they
>were not taught observatioanly correct facts.
Get real, Glenn! How many "Christians leaving the fold" have you
prevented? If anything you have helped prevent "atheists" from leaving
*their* "fold", because some of them might have become Christians
by reading Hugh Ross or Phil Johnson, if it was not for you.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------