Interesting debate. And very telling. It seems that a hypothesis related to "global witness" is easily dissolved into worries about protecting the "flock", seperating out wolves in sheeps clothing, and mincing words about very obvious points of fact, such as the geological column. I don't think these are helpful ways of turning the tide that John Zylstra is lamenting.
I enjoyed Jeff's reminder that the two books of revelation both reveal God and not just any old (sorry) fact. This is something that every Christian scientist/apologist/philosoper would need to keep in mind. It might help us find a productive way out of the Bible/science debate without us reeking of paranoia and grasping at straws.
As for our first mission field, it seems to me that a strategy of demonizing any sort of science that isn't "young earth" or which refuses to abide the historical, logical and theological sense of Scripture (i.e. modern fundamentalism) will inevitably make a ghetto of Christian faith and "science". In other words, it's not evolution that's driving thinking people away from faith. It's much of the church's public reaction to it.
I believe that the above mentioned endeavor is mostly about preaching to itchy ears and is not at all interested in convicting skeptics, Christian or not.
There's plenty of pride and egotism to go around, John. That's for sure.
My take on it is based on shared experiences of young people with a natural tendency to skepticism and curiosity. This is about a preacher telling them that if you shoot a skunk in the woods and let it rot for a couple of weeks, the bones are just as worthy as being called a "fossil" as any other. This is science teachers shutting down thoughtful student objections in the classrooms of our Christian Schools. This is indeed about demonizing fellow Christians because they are not YECs.
Tell you what. I have randomly selected a paper written by a present day YEC by the name of Helder -- "How to Respond to Secular Science". She is better trained in the sciences than I am. But I want to show you how her approach is not at all interested in "winning the battle" against skeptics of any stripe. It's about triumphalism, propaganda, arrogance and ghetto science.
Give me a couple of weeks to give her paper a more careful read and go through it point by point.
I am responding because you invited me to. You posed the question. I am trying to answer it. I don't waste time responding to all objections. I just concentrate on ones pretending to be completely scientific and rational as well as claiming to be faithful to the Bible. I find many of these voices repeatedly bear false witness, encourage division in the Christian community, and seem to misunderstand the nature of science. (Incidently, I also invest time and energy in refutions of claims like those of Dawkins. However it's American fundamentalism that's making this more difficult, not the other way around)
Allow me, then, to use Helder as an example of how NOT to respond to "secular science". The first brief installment is just about ready. Then you can have at 'er.
As long as this church sponsored forum continues to publically promote YEC propaganda, fudge the basic principles and conclusions of modern science, and bear false witness against those who hold them, I will post rebuttal evidence. At least as long as the moderators allow me. :) According to the Heidelberg Catechism teaching on how to honour the 9th commandment, this is my duty before God and my neighbour.
((John.. this is not about you... I am deliberately staying away from making this about you...if you would actually READ what Michael Roberts wrote, especially about the present controveries concerning Young Earth "science", you would see that this is one of the conclusions (among others) he has drawn after looking at YEC behaviours. I have drawn the same conclusions concerning bearing false witness, either by commission or by omission, among many in the YEC camp. It seems many don't realize the impact this is having on our global witness.
I think I'm entitled to my own conclusions as to what is useful and what is not. I think any reader of this thread is also entitled to their conclusions as to what is useful in this discussion. I promise not to make this subject a personal attack on you, John. Lead me not into temptation.. ))
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
Nice!
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Interesting debate. And very telling. It seems that a hypothesis related to "global witness" is easily dissolved into worries about protecting the "flock", seperating out wolves in sheeps clothing, and mincing words about very obvious points of fact, such as the geological column. I don't think these are helpful ways of turning the tide that John Zylstra is lamenting.
I enjoyed Jeff's reminder that the two books of revelation both reveal God and not just any old (sorry) fact. This is something that every Christian scientist/apologist/philosoper would need to keep in mind. It might help us find a productive way out of the Bible/science debate without us reeking of paranoia and grasping at straws.
Here is an example of why we are losing the "war": http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cuozzo_cg.html
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Thanks for trying, John.
As for our first mission field, it seems to me that a strategy of demonizing any sort of science that isn't "young earth" or which refuses to abide the historical, logical and theological sense of Scripture (i.e. modern fundamentalism) will inevitably make a ghetto of Christian faith and "science". In other words, it's not evolution that's driving thinking people away from faith. It's much of the church's public reaction to it.
I believe that the above mentioned endeavor is mostly about preaching to itchy ears and is not at all interested in convicting skeptics, Christian or not.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
There's plenty of pride and egotism to go around, John. That's for sure.
My take on it is based on shared experiences of young people with a natural tendency to skepticism and curiosity. This is about a preacher telling them that if you shoot a skunk in the woods and let it rot for a couple of weeks, the bones are just as worthy as being called a "fossil" as any other. This is science teachers shutting down thoughtful student objections in the classrooms of our Christian Schools. This is indeed about demonizing fellow Christians because they are not YECs.
Tell you what. I have randomly selected a paper written by a present day YEC by the name of Helder -- "How to Respond to Secular Science". She is better trained in the sciences than I am. But I want to show you how her approach is not at all interested in "winning the battle" against skeptics of any stripe. It's about triumphalism, propaganda, arrogance and ghetto science.
Give me a couple of weeks to give her paper a more careful read and go through it point by point.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Here's why creation science, as presently practiced, is a myth.
It's purely antagonistic and propagandist.
It's purely political.
It holds the rest of the Christian community hostage to its biblicist, literalist, claims and we are all paying for it.
Here's an example of what's going on in America:
http://www.texscience.org/meetings/sboe-live-blog-2009January21-23.htm
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Dear John... couldn't wait, huh? :)
I am responding because you invited me to. You posed the question. I am trying to answer it. I don't waste time responding to all objections. I just concentrate on ones pretending to be completely scientific and rational as well as claiming to be faithful to the Bible. I find many of these voices repeatedly bear false witness, encourage division in the Christian community, and seem to misunderstand the nature of science. (Incidently, I also invest time and energy in refutions of claims like those of Dawkins. However it's American fundamentalism that's making this more difficult, not the other way around)
Allow me, then, to use Helder as an example of how NOT to respond to "secular science". The first brief installment is just about ready. Then you can have at 'er.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
As long as this church sponsored forum continues to publically promote YEC propaganda, fudge the basic principles and conclusions of modern science, and bear false witness against those who hold them, I will post rebuttal evidence. At least as long as the moderators allow me. :) According to the Heidelberg Catechism teaching on how to honour the 9th commandment, this is my duty before God and my neighbour.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4065
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
I see you removed your comment. Thank you.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
((John.. this is not about you... I am deliberately staying away from making this about you...if you would actually READ what Michael Roberts wrote, especially about the present controveries concerning Young Earth "science", you would see that this is one of the conclusions (among others) he has drawn after looking at YEC behaviours. I have drawn the same conclusions concerning bearing false witness, either by commission or by omission, among many in the YEC camp. It seems many don't realize the impact this is having on our global witness.
I think I'm entitled to my own conclusions as to what is useful and what is not. I think any reader of this thread is also entitled to their conclusions as to what is useful in this discussion. I promise not to make this subject a personal attack on you, John. Lead me not into temptation.. ))
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
google search the title --- How Christians Respond to Secular Science
by Dr. Margaret Helder
to read the paper for yourself.