Re: New member and Not challanging scualrism of science

From: Jonathan Clarke (
Date: Fri Jul 19 2002 - 20:44:11 EDT

  • Next message: J Burgeson: "Re: Inerrancy"

    Welcome Marque, I hope you find this list as helpful as I have. I would agree
    in essence with what you say, but would also add that I believe that creation
    and evolution are complementary explanations. Creation is a statement about
    relationship, evolution about mechanism. A child might ask its
    parents "How did
    I get here?", and the answers "Your mother and father wanted to have children"
    and "your parents had sex" would be equally true, but in a
    complementary matter,
    rather than conflicting.


    Victorian Wife wrote:

    > Hi Everyone!
    > I am new to the list and a new believer as well (3 months). However, I am
    > not new to science having degrees and expertise in veterinary medicine,
    > toxicology, molecular biology and immunology. My enthusiasm right now is
    > bounding but my absolute knowledge base of scripture and theology is limited
    > (having grown up as agnostic as they come), although I attack it every day
    > with gusto. So in advance, please excuse me if I am somewhat overzealous
    > and a bit off the mark at times. I am here to learn and will take all
    > educational comments with grace.
    > >First let me concede Michael point that poor science among many YEC has
    > >done the Gospel damage. But in this country (less so in Britain), the
    > >lack of effective challenge of the secular roots of our science has I
    > >think been a serious weakness of mainstream evangelical scientists. In
    > >my view it has resulted in a perception among mainstream Christian laity
    > >the evangelical scientists have really compromised the Gospel and
    > >encouraged their looking to alternatives like YEC.
    > )
    > I would like to also jump in on this one. To state that some of the
    > speculations on science by armchair scientists has done the Gospel damage is
    > a gross understatement. I am a personal witness to this one. When I would
    > hear over and over about creationism and global floods and the like, I would
    > think to myself "Christians seem a little wacko to me," and thus I never
    > thought to look at Christianity carefully myself.
    > I think a lot of other scientists or smart lay people feel the same way.
    > They turn off their receptivity when they hear some of poor science
    > (non-science might even be a better way to state it). It is hard to sort
    > out what are fringe Christian beliefs and what are mainstream beliefs when
    > you aren't steeped in Christian theology. It is also not understood in the
    > agnostic world that many of these theories under debate and there is not
    > enough hard evidence to fully support any one theory - there are a lot of
    > holes in theory of evolution and the theory of how life started, for
    > example, but most of the public doesn't perceive this and when it is debated
    > between Christians and non-Christians those perceptions become even more
    > polarized.
    > But the fact is, creationism and evolution are both just theories. Neither
    > should be taken as dogma nor as a proof. Both revolve around the very soft
    > science of biology - a science that eludes hardness just as our
    > understanding of the meaning of some scripture sometimes eludes us. We just
    > don't know enough yet to state anything categorically.
    > There will always be scientists that hold onto their hypothesis tenaciously
    > as they try to make the puzzle pieces fit their puzzle. And that's another
    > really good thing to remember - a hypothesis is like a puzzle with just a
    > frame and no insides. You have a pile of pieces and some of them you can
    > link together but some don't seem to fit anywhere. You keep trying and keep
    > researching to collect more pieces. Your collegue sits right beside you with
    > the same puzzle pieces and tries to fit them into his frame at the same
    > time. He might get more of them to fit than you but that doesn't mean in
    > the end that he will complete the puzzle first. Science and theories have
    > been turned on their heads more often than not.
    > But what absolutely can't happen is we can't have people taking out the
    > scissors to trim down some pieces in an attempt to make them fit better into
    > their puzzle. We also can't just discard some of the pieces because they
    > don't seem to fit our puzzle. Sadly, this seems to be the case with alot of
    > the YEC crowd. They say carbon dating is bunk or that just because the
    > geological strata or fossil record does not fit their hypothesis that it
    > must be bad techniques. When these sorts of things happen, practical,
    > objective scientists run like the wind and won't give that hypothesis (or
    > Christianisty) a second look.
    > Luckily, I have a fiance that challenged me to look at the facts and not
    > just what the media was spewing out. I took him up on his challenge and
    > fully intended to debunk the Christian "myths" with logic and objectivity.
    > see where that got me! I can see the intelligent design in the
    > natural world and I can't refute it for one moment. I hope to evangelize to
    > my fellow scientists after I build my knowledge base a bit further. One
    > thing to keep in mind, the most effective evangelism may not come from
    > someone writing a book for the mass audience but from what each of us does
    > personally with non-believing individuals on a daily basis.
    > Great list and I look forward to good reading.
    > Marque (female, BTW)
    > _________________________________________________________________
    > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:

    "It is not easy to see how the more extreme forms of nationalism can long
    survive when men have seen the earth as a pale crescent dwindling against the
    stars, until at last they look for it in vain".

    Arthur C. Clarke

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 19 2002 - 23:49:10 EDT