Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Message to all Creationists
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 28 (461969)
03-28-2008 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Minnemooseus
03-28-2008 9:30 PM


Re: The all or nothing Bible?
Moose, yes, human works have been shown to have mistakes, but imo God would see to it that his message is generally accurate. The Biblical account begins with the origin of the heavens and the earth, commences to record (and prophecy) all of the major kingdoms of the earth all the way up to the end of this world and creation of new heavens and earth.
Fulfilled prophecy and much of the verifiable archeological evidence lend a reasonable amount of support to the accuracy of the record. That is debatable, but that is my position and understanding of it. Imo, no significant falsification of it has yet been achieved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-28-2008 9:30 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Otto Tellick, posted 03-31-2008 3:01 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 28 (461970)
03-28-2008 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by obvious Child
03-28-2008 9:13 PM


Re: The all or nothing Bible?
1. Many professing Christians do pick and choose. We have these among us. They tend to be liberal and non-literalist. They're some of the ones I'm discussing about and debating with in this thread.
Now you're creating this strawman which is not my position. I'm not saying there wouldn't be moral lessons if picking and choosing. My points have been relative to the historical record etc.
Edited by Buzsaw, : change word

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by obvious Child, posted 03-28-2008 9:13 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by obvious Child, posted 03-29-2008 4:37 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 18 of 28 (461974)
03-28-2008 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Buzsaw
03-28-2008 7:50 PM


Re: The teachings of Christ
Buzzsaw writes:
That's not how it works. When parable was used the text so indicated. For example:
"Baalam took up his parable and said"... Numbers 23:7, 24:3
"Job continued his parable..." Job 27:1
".....my mouth in a parable I will utter..." Psalms 49:4
".....speak a parable to the house...." Ezekiel 17:2...."
".....one shall take up a parable...." Micah 2:4
".....the parable of the sower......" Matthew 13:18..."
".....the parable of the tares...." Matthew 13:36
".....learn a parable of the fig tree...." Mark 13:28
There are more but that should suffice to make my point.
I have never questioned that it often points out that a parable is being used.
So then following your logic the 2 that I picked out at random, (Good Samaritin and Prodigal Son) have to be literally true, as the text does not indicate that these stories are parables. By your logic it can only be a parable when it is literally pointed out and therefore, also by your logic then if you don't believe that those 2 stories are literally true then they have no value in themselves, and furthermore, none of the rest of the Bible is of any use either.
Buzzsaw writes:
This reasoning leads one to pick and choose what is parable and what is not. I suppose John 14:6 would be to you a parable since you likely are one who has a problem of the literacy of that one. Jesus's claim there is that he is the only way to God and eternal life and that no man comes to God but through him.
I have no trouble reading that literally but at the same time I don't see it as excluding non-Christians. (I do agree however that there will be some very surprised Atheists. )
Buzzsaw writes:
An objective reading of the Genesis record is that it is history and certainly there is no indication in the text whatsoever that it is myth, metaphor or parable.
I think that there is every indication that it is 100% truthful but much less than 100% historically true. Exactly the same as the 2 previously mentioned parables.
Buzzsaw writes:
Imo gullibility is associated with dogedly adhering to a weak argument. I've substantiated that your argument is weak and unfounded.
Ya right
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Buzsaw, posted 03-28-2008 7:50 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 03-29-2008 6:46 PM GDR has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 19 of 28 (461986)
03-29-2008 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Buzsaw
03-28-2008 10:30 PM


Re: The all or nothing Bible?
Every theists picks and chooses. It's called interpretation. How do we KNOW that all of the holy text is meant to be literal? How do we KNOW that some of the text is meant to be metaphorical? How do we know?
Simple answer: We don't. Every theists makes a choice about what they want to take literally and figuratively.
You seem to be arguing that without accepting a holy book entirely, that the books are therefore without use. I disagree with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 03-28-2008 10:30 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 03-29-2008 7:21 PM obvious Child has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 28 (462041)
03-29-2008 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by GDR
03-28-2008 11:31 PM


Re: The teachings of Christ
GDR writes:
So then following your logic the 2 that I picked out at random, (Good Samaritin and Prodigal Son) have to be literally true, as the text does not indicate that these stories are parables. By your logic it can only be a parable when it is literally pointed out and therefore, also by your logic then if you don't believe that those 2 stories are literally true then they have no value in themselves, and furthermore, none of the rest of the Bible is of any use either.
Thanks, my friend, for picking two easy examples for me to address.
1. Prodigal Son Account:
Luke 15:ll "A certain man had two sons........"
2.Good Samaritan Account:
Luke 10:30 "Jesus made answer and said, A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho; and he fell among robbers...."
v 31: "...And by chance a certain priest was going down.."
v 32: "...And in like manner a "Levite" also......"
v 33" "...But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed..."
Thus we see certain men and real locations.
Regarding the term certain relative to this matter:
There are a number of other texts which use this word term nearly all, if not all, pertaining to certain alleged historical people and/or places. A few from the NT:
Luke 11:1 ".......as he (Jesus) was praying in a certain place...."
Mark 14:57 ".....And there stood up certain and bare false witness among them....."
Luke 11:27 "....a certain woman lifted up her voice and said unto him (Jesus)"......And he was with the desciples certain days in Damascus..."
You will be hard pressed to find a text in the entire Bible which applies this word/term relating to parable, metaphor or myth.
You're apply some stawmen regarding my position. My position/argument/point has not been that metaphor cannot be useful and good. My position is that the Genesis record and other texts which have no indication textually as being parable, metaphor or myth are meant to be certain places, people, things and events etc. In scripture they do have value in themselves to the contexts in which they exist.
FYI: Buzzsaw = Buzsaw
Samaritin = Samaritan

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by GDR, posted 03-28-2008 11:31 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by GDR, posted 03-29-2008 7:47 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 26 by truthlover, posted 03-30-2008 8:34 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 28 (462043)
03-29-2008 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by obvious Child
03-29-2008 4:37 AM


Re: The all or nothing Bible?
Obvious Child writes:
Every theists picks and chooses. It's called interpretation. How do we KNOW that all of the holy text is meant to be literal? How do we KNOW that some of the text is meant to be metaphorical? How do we know?
Simple answer: We don't. Every theists makes a choice about what they want to take literally and figuratively.
You seem to be arguing that without accepting a holy book entirely, that the books are therefore without use. I disagree with that.
1. I have to partly agree on your first statement. I say partly because I, as well as some others I know, make a concerted effort not to interpret when possible not to do so or when the text, context or corroborating scriptural text is reasonably clear. When the text, context or corroborating text is not clear one may opt either to offer an interpretation or simply admit that it it's meaning is not known to them.
Where I agree is that many Christians, likely most, who are students and scholars of scripture do too much interpreting and too little, reading and keeping what is written. Revelation 1:3 promises a blessing on all who read, hear and keep what is written.
2. I've already addressed the way to know whether text is metaphor or literal.
3. True, every reader chooses how much to apply literally and metaphorically. Imo the more one chooses metaphor the less knowledgeable on will be regarding the book.
This is true with any textbook, craft or history, etc. If the pilot of your next flight might be one who tends to be liberal in which fundamentals of piloting to implement you might not be as likely to reach your destination as you would with a literalist and fundamentalist pilot.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by obvious Child, posted 03-29-2008 4:37 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by obvious Child, posted 03-29-2008 11:38 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 22 of 28 (462046)
03-29-2008 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Buzsaw
03-29-2008 6:46 PM


Re: The teachings of Christ
Buzsaw writes:
You're apply some stawmen regarding my position. My position/argument/point has not been that metaphor cannot be useful and good. My position is that the Genesis record and other texts which have no indication textually as being parable, metaphor or myth are meant to be certain places, people, things and events etc. In scripture they do have value in themselves to the contexts in which they exist.
All you have done is come up with rationalizations for not reading the texts literally. In other words you ar picking and choosing which parts to read literally and which parts you don't read literally. I do the same thing. We just don't agree about which parts are literal and which parts aren't.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 03-29-2008 6:46 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Buzsaw, posted 03-29-2008 11:18 PM GDR has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 28 (462058)
03-29-2008 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by GDR
03-29-2008 7:47 PM


Re: The teachings of Christ
You appear to be about out of gas on this, GDR, but it's been an interesting and hopefully enlightening exchange of points for both of us and others to ponder.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by GDR, posted 03-29-2008 7:47 PM GDR has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 24 of 28 (462060)
03-29-2008 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Buzsaw
03-29-2008 7:21 PM


Re: The all or nothing Bible?
quote:
. I say partly because I, as well as some others I know, make a concerted effort not to interpret when possible not to do so or when the text, context or corroborating scriptural text is reasonably clear.
I find it amusing you can't even see that you are doing. What you deem to be reasonably clear is because your interpretation of the meanings results in your opinion on it being clear. Again, your and others' interpretation is always at work. How do you know that what APPEARS to be reasonably clear is actually a metaphor for something different?
Simple answer: you don't.
As much as you don't want to admit it, you are doing the exact same thing at all times for your religion that you seem to be criticizing others for.
quote:
2. I've already addressed the way to know whether text is metaphor or literal.
See above for why you need to rethink that.
quote:
3. True, every reader chooses how much to apply literally and metaphorically. Imo the more one chooses metaphor the less knowledgeable on will be regarding the book.
And others would lean the opposite. Again, interpretation at work.
quote:
If the pilot of your next flight might be one who tends to be liberal in which fundamentals of piloting to implement you might not be as likely to reach your destination as you would with a literalist and fundamentalist pilot.
Unless what you are studying was meant to be metaphorical.
Again, you fail to even acknowledge your own interpretation when you attack others.
My point is, no one can be absolutely sure what parts are meant to be literal, what parts figurative, if any of it is actually factually true and if their interpretations are correct. Therefore, someone who realizes the limitation of their own knowledge, aka, aware of their own ignorance, should not be criticizing others for their interpretations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 03-29-2008 7:21 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Buzsaw, posted 03-30-2008 9:45 AM obvious Child has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 28 (462082)
03-30-2008 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by obvious Child
03-29-2008 11:38 PM


Re: The all or nothing Bible?
Obvious, obviously, we're at an impasse here on this matter which is just one factor relative to the topic. Imo, it's best threadwise not to belabor it further unless someone has something significant to contribute, not already addressed.
I've thoroughly explained my POV on it. It appears that you folks have as well. All will need to determine who is making sense here and who is not regarding the points aired in this exchange of views.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by obvious Child, posted 03-29-2008 11:38 PM obvious Child has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 26 of 28 (462100)
03-30-2008 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Buzsaw
03-29-2008 6:46 PM


My position is that the Genesis record and other texts which have no indication textually as being parable, metaphor or myth are meant to be certain places, people, things and events etc.
Awesome. I'm interested in seeing the four "certain places" where the pillars stand upon which the earth is set.
quote:
For the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them.
It would also be interesting to see the "certain place" where the waters above the firmament are. And since "firmament" means something hard, it would be awesome to see the "certain thing" that is the firmament, which has the sun, moon, and stars in it, and which holds up the waters above.
Even if you don't buy the definition of "firmament" as "something hard," even though it's obviously true, you still have waters above the sun, moon, and stars. It'd be interesting to see how much water it would take to surround the universe!
Of course, if you don't buy the definition of firmament as something hard, you disagree with the Scriptures, which says that the sky is as hard as a hammered out metal mirror (Job 37:18).
Every creationist I know has taken the firmament and "waters above" of Genesis one and made them figurative on the basis of science. Every creationist I know has made the passage about the pillars of the earth and made that figurative--or worse, wrong--on the basis of science.
I cannot imagine why any of them can't do the same with the days and the means of creation, because it's easier to see those as figurative than the firmament, the waters above, or the pillars of the earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 03-29-2008 6:46 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 27 of 28 (462109)
03-31-2008 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Buzsaw
03-28-2008 10:21 PM


Re: The all or nothing Bible?
Buzsaw writes:
yes, human works have been shown to have mistakes, but imo God would see to it that his message is generally accurate.
Um... yeah, sure, except in those cases where He has somehow not seen to it. For example, in your opinion, are the Mormons right, or are they wrong, about recent revelations from God being given to certain American citizens within the last 150 years or so? If they are wrong, why has God not smote (or otherwise squelched) them?
In any case, I don't think "accurate" is the right term for describing biblical text. Accuracy involves providing sufficient detail to forestall misinterpretation, and this attribute is demonstrably lacking in biblical text. (Update: to be more precise: the term does not apply well to the descriptions about creation and the early generations, since they leave rather a lot to the imagination. Another sense of "accuracy" -- excluding and countering misinformation -- is also problematic for portions like the flood and the Tower of Babel, since there is a wealth of firm physical and linguistic evidence that makes these accounts implausible at best, but that's a matter for other threads.)
(If the Mormons are right, we should maybe conclude that God's intervention in human affairs includes making additions to the holy text now and then; indeed there is evidence that this has happened before (adding the NT), and it's plausible that He isn't even done yet and there may be more additions later -- another indication that "accuracy", in the sense of "sufficient detail", was not one of the original "design goals" of the older books...)
The Biblical account begins with the origin of the heavens and the earth, commences to record (and prophecy) all of the major kingdoms of the earth all the way up to the end of this world and creation of new heavens and earth.
Whoa. I've seen some of the stuff you've posted at EvC about prophecy, Buz, and frankly, accuracy is really not a word that comes to mind when I think about it. If your notion of "accuracy" consists of utter vagueness in the text as to times and locations, plus (re)interpretation of nouns by free association (e.g. "bows and arrows" means "anti-aircraft missiles"), then I suppose this does bring us to something of "an impasse" in the discussion: the Bible simply says whatever you think it should say in your opinion, and contravening evidence, in whatever form or amount, simply cannot achieve any "significant falsification." Hey, I'm fine with that -- you're entitled to your opinion -- just don't try to foist it on my kids as part of a science class in public school. (Update: to be clear, I do have a strong Constitutional objection to that.)
Though the opening post in this thread was clearly not addressed to me, I think it makes a good point: perhaps the issues that are most vital to Christian faith do not need to depend crucially on accepting distortions of both science and biblical text for the sake of asserting all of Genesis as a literal record of physical history. If your personal faith depends on that, well, it means that your form of Christianity is different from other people's. So what else is new, eh?
Edited by Otto Tellick, : (moved a quotation mark)
Edited by Otto Tellick, : Added the long parenthesized "Update:..." to the 2nd paragraph.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : minor grammar fix and addition of "(Update:..)" in next-to-last paragraph

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Buzsaw, posted 03-28-2008 10:21 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 28 of 28 (462211)
04-01-2008 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by willietdog
03-27-2008 1:38 AM


Back to the OP
I thought your story looked very familiar. I had read it on Glenn Morton's site ("Personal Stories of the Creation/Evolution Struggle", No webpage found at provided URL: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/person.htm). I might have even read it on talk.origins, though I've not been there in a long time, ever since Google changed their reader.
Basically, I've been trying to tell creationists the same thing since around 1990. Only I've been concentrating more on the effects that relying almost exclusively on false teachings has on their followers, especially when they finally realize that their religious leaders had been lying to them all along. Two very common themes in atheists' testimonials of why they lost their faith are having been betrayed and/or lied to by their religion or religious leaders. Couple that with "creation science" having taught them that the truth of Scripture and of Christianity depends on "creation science's" claims being true and you have a perfect formula for deconversion. As well as an excellent way to keep non-believers from ever considering Christianity: all they have to do is take the creationists' word for it, see that their claims are wrong, and conclude as directed by the creationists that Christianity is false and that there is no God. Ironically, while science is incapable of proving or disproving the existence of God (not that science would want to), the creationists have created a test for the existence of God -- one that is sure to fail -- and so it is the creationists who succeed in disproving the existence of God, albeit via a false test. Small wonder that "creation science" is considered one of the greatest single contributors to the growth and spread of atheism.
Back around 1990, I had put up a web site primarily to host essays I had posted on CompuServe during the mid-to-late 80's -- No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/index.html. Because I had thrown that index page together in a hurry it did not clearly express my position, so I set about to reorganize it: No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/new_index.html. Since my life began to shatter around that time, it is still a work in progress and very imcomplete, but you can still glean some idea of my position from it; I apologize in advance. Of much greater use are my quotes page (No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/quotes.html) and my links page (No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/links.html).
Although I have encountered obvious cases of creationists deliberately employing lies and deception, I also realize that most creationists using those same false claims do not realize that they are false. So part of my approach is to try to discuss with them the effects of using false claims -- it's only lying if you know that it's false. But whether you know that it's false or not, the effects of using false claims is the same, especially when you rely heavily on using false claims to support and promote your religion. From your post, I believe that you would agree.
Nor are we alone. I've collected a number of pertinent quotes on my quotes page (No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/quotes.html), some of which you might find useful:
Dr Jonathan Sarfati of Answers In Genesis (AiG) in AiG Negative Feedback, 02 December 2002 (link to source broken -- they appear to now only go back to 2003):
quote:
As said in the original Don’t Use page, the harm is in using something which is not true, because the cause of the one who is ”the truth’ cannot be helped thereby. And your own recent experience reinforces something else we said”that using discredited arguments can backfire on the user. So our aim was to help Christians to avoid arguments that are likely to backfire, and return their focus to the Word of God not "evidence".
...
But more and more over the last few years, we have noticed tens of thousands of Christians excitedly using arguments over the Web, for instance, that are a plain embarrassment to those with scientific training. It was like watching your brother enter the ring thinking he had a killer punch, and watching him get cut to ribbons. Further, and most importantly, it had escalated to the point where it was a hindrance to soul winning, since it gave the hearers a "legitimate" excuse to reject Christ. And all we did at that point was to publish an "advice" article. The only time it became relevant to a specific creationist was when Kent [Hovind] himself decided to align himself publicly with a justification of false arguments. If it had been one or two minor points of disagreement, OK, but when it reinforces some of the most blatant fallacies, and even defends fraud, at what point does one NOT face one's responsibilities to the innocents being "slaughtered" in the belief that they are getting sound ammunition?
...
... , we actually do know people who say they almost gave the faith away when they found out that a particular argument was fallacious, and who say that finding Christians with the integrity to avoid falsehood, no matter what the cost, helped restore it. Also, in the last day or so, a leading atheistic anti-creationist organization said that while they disagreed with almost everything we stand for, they said we were "admirable" and "showed integrity" in trying to persuade other creationists not to use bad arguments. Who knows what sort of witness this could be? We know of many people, outside and inside of the church, who will no longer even look at or consider the authority of the Bible in Genesis, in its history, cosmology, etc. because of bad experiences with blatant pseudo-arguments applied by enthusiasts who had been fed creationist non-arguments.
Dr. Don Batten of Answers in Genesis (AiG), "What About Carl Baugh?", No webpage found at provided URL: http://paleo.cc/paluxy/whatbau.htm (posted off-site, but I personally confirmed its authenticity directly with AiG):
quote:
Muddying the water?
It is sad that Carl Baugh will 'muddy the water' for many Christians and non-Christians. Some Christians will try to use Baugh's 'evidences' in witnessing and get 'shot down' by someone who is scientifically literate. The ones witnessed to will thereafter be wary of all creation evidences and even more inclined to dismiss Christians as nut cases not worth listening to.
Also, the Christian is likely to be less apt to witness, even perhaps tempted to doubt their own faith (wondering what other misinformation they have gullibly believed from Christian teachers). CSF ministers to strengthen the faith of Christians and equip them for the work of evangelism and, sadly, the long term effect of Carl Baugh's efforts will be detrimental to both.
We would much rather be spending all our time positively encouraging and equipping rather than countering the well-intentioned but misguided efforts of some like Carl Baugh, but we cannot stand idly by knowing people are being misled. Truth sets people free, not error!
Evangelical Christian and then-Ph.D. candidate in geology, Steven Schimmrich, "Kenneth Ham and the Dinosaurs" (No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/schimmrich/ham.html):
quote:
'Why should I care?'
If you're not a Christian, you should care because creationists are trying to get this type of garbage taught in public schools as "science." This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, science and teaching it as such is the equivalent of teaching astrology in astronomy classes or crystal healing in geology classes. If you care about the education of our children, then you should care about this issue.
If you are a Christian, you should care because this stuff is being taught in Christian schools (students from Judah Christian School in Champaign, Illinois were taken to the Answers in Genesis seminar). What happens when these children learn more about science and find out that they were lied to - that dinosaurs and man could never have coexisted, that there is abundant evidence for an old earth and no evidence whatsoever for a young one, and that the fossil record does not support a Biblical flood model? Will they conclude that they were lied to about other things as well? Lied to about Jesus Christ and the resurrection?
I think Christians should be scrupulously honest and above reproach when they are engaged in scholarly pursuits such as science. Instead they have a reputation for being a bunch of loons. It harms the cause of Christ.
While a post-graduate student at Calvin College, Schimmrich was very active on-line and ran the Science & Christianity mailing list (SCICHR) which hosted several excellent essays which I list here: No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/schimmrich/index.html#SCICHR_ESSAYS.
Since graduating he has turned his attention more towards starting his career and raising his family. I obtained his permission to repost a number of his pages here: No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/schimmrich/index.html
It was through SCICHR that I read (PhD Physics) Dr. Allan Harvey's essays: No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings.htm. On my quotes page I quote from his "Science and Christian Apologetics" (No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/apologetics.html), which echoes your concern over the additional obstacles creationism places in the way of potential converts:
quote:
Maybe I can start by saying I wish this talk wasn’t necessary. I think science has become a bigger apologetic problem than it should be, and, I hate to say, a lot of that is our fault as the church. Not because we don’t know enough science (though that can be a problem, too), but because we’ve got some basic misunderstandings about how science and nature fit into Christian theology. So I’m not going to talk much about science, I’m going to talk about what I think are the real sources of our problems. If we can get those things straight, I think most of the apologetic problems go away.
I want to start with an observation about apologetics in general. When people say they reject Christianity, a lot of the time what they’re really rejecting is something else. Maybe they’re rejecting televangelists, or some hypocrisy they saw in their parents or their parents’ church, maybe they’re rejecting the politics of the Christian Coalition, or some opinion about science that they think is an essential part of the faith. I think an important part of apologetics is to recognize these misconceptions and clear them out of the way so people can consider the actual Gospel of Jesus Christ. There may be things they’ll reject there (Paul said the Gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing), but at least then you’re dealing with the real issues and not these distractions.
I have an example of this from my own experience. When I was working on my Ph.D., I shared a lab with a man from Taiwan named Albert. One day there was an evangelist making noise on campus, and Albert asked me a question out of the blue: “How can you be a Christian and believe all that Creationism stuff?” I managed to mumble something about how “that stuff” wasn’t what Christianity was all about. But Albert’s question had illustrated the problems we have with science and apologetics.
Albert knew that the claims of so-called “creation science” about the Earth being only 6000 years old and so forth were ridiculous, like saying the Earth was flat. Can’t blame him for not wanting to be associated with that nonsense. But what’s worse is that that was the first thing that came to Albert’s mind about Christianity. Not the death and resurrection of Jesus. Not even the Golden Rule or the Ten Commandments. The anti-science noise had drowned out the Gospel so all Albert had heard was a false Gospel, one that was centered in a particular interpretation of Genesis rather than being centered in Christ. [Gal. 1:6-9]
. . .
My concern is what can we do to correct the misconceptions that people have (both people like Albert and some Christians) that the findings of science (geology, astronomy, biological sciences [including evolution]) are incompatible with Christianity, that embracing Jesus means rejecting science. And it’s a serious problem. It’s serious because there are people like Albert out there who know science, and we put stumbling blocks in the way of them even considering Jesus. You hear missionaries talk about unreached people groups; here’s a group of people that aren’t hearing the Gospel because they can’t get past the huge credibility barrier put up by the things some Christians say about science.
But it’s also serious because of its effects on Christians, and I’m especially worried about children. If we teach our children that they have to choose between science and faith, we're setting them up for a fall. Because some of them are going to grow up and study the real world God made and learn that what the church has told them about science is false. If we’ve taught them that the Gospel or the truth of the Bible depends on those things, then its like the house built on sand, their foundation gets washed away, and their faith may go with it. I think Jesus had some words about those who set people up to stumble on issues like this: [Luke 17:1-2] “Stumbling blocks are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung round his neck and he were cast into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble.”
So, how do we give our children a foundation that won’t crumble the first time they take a college science class, and how do we keep science from being a stumbling block to people like Albert? I’ve thought about these things a lot, and I’ve decided that at the root of our problems are two fundamental mistakes, and both of them involve taking our human philosophy and letting it dictate to God what he can and can’t do. I hope you’d all agree that dictating to God isn’t a good idea.
Harvey also writes about "God of the Gaps" theology, something which I have found to be very prevalent in "creation science" and practically fundamental to "intelligent design".
I hope that some of this can be of use.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by willietdog, posted 03-27-2008 1:38 AM willietdog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024