| Greene's Creationism Truth Filter |
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Genesis-Discussion/message/2719
From: Steve Heiden Hi, Mark. On 3/19/01 you wrote, "Given the deleterious effect of ET on our society, I'm surprised that more Christians are not prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to Creationism." There are lots of things that are blamed for "deleterious effects" simply because people are using these things as scapegoats for the purpose of relinquishing individual responsibility. There are people who claim that believing that the sun revolves about the earth is reasonable. Making the claim, and substantiating it, are two different things. Such a belief as that is clearly unreasonable. Claiming, moreover, that it is 'a better belief for Christians to have' simply means that the person making the claim is trying to use God as a pedestal upon which they are illegitimately and unfairly thrusting their own human beliefs and then trying to use this pedestal as a 'power play' against Christians who would disagree with their particular human belief. Many aspects of creationism (in the traditional sense of 'creationism,' as opposed to the more general sense of 'creation') have been flatly disproven, and with respect to our religious beliefs, the relevant aspects that have been disproven have removed all supposed theological justification for opposing the concept of biological evolution in the first place. The two main aspects I'm referring to are (1) in the area of biblical hermeneutics regarding a literalistic interpretation of Genesis, and (2) in the area of theological doctrine regarding the meaning of God's Curse. (1) A literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1 (taken in conjunction with the genealogies) led many Christians to advocate that God created the universe only 6,000 years. This is flatly wrong, on an empirically factual basis, because today we understand that with, for example, something like the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy we are literally observing events in that galaxy that took place over 150,000 years ago (and the Large Magellanic Cloud is the second closest galaxy to the earth, beyond which there are literally millions of other galaxies in which we observe events from even more distant times in the universe' past). Thus, we know factually that the literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1 is incorrect. (2) Many Christians advocated that God's Curse on Adam and Eve must mean that there was no physical death before Adam, so therefore there can be no evolution since there was no death. However, just like in the previous case, it is the fact of antiquity (in this case, of the earth itself, instead of the entire universe) that falsifies the concept of "no physical death before Adam." Even if, for the sake of argument, evolution was completely false, it is still the factual case that the earth is ancient, and the existence of fossils shows that physical death did indeed exist before Adam. These are simply empirical matters, empirical in the same sense as objectively examining meteorological influences for learning about the physical processes associated with creating our weather. Examining and learning about these physical processes — learning how the world works — does not have "deleterious effects on our society." It is what we human beings do with our this factual information, it is the kinds of values that we possess and teach to our children which are beneficial or deleterious on our society, not learning about objective aspects of the physical processes of the real world. I have recently read some very similar comments in this vein, which are online here:
Sincerely, |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Genesis-Discussion/message/2723
From: Steve Heiden Dear Mark, You ask (3/31/01),
Regarding question 1, the obvious answer is that it is better (best) to live in Christ. Regarding question number 2, evolution is indeed a viable hypothesis, so the question is rather irrelevant. We could also ask speculative questions like: "If God guided the planets around the sun directly and supernaturally, rather than through the indirect agency of a gravitational force, how many non-believers would there be?" I suppose this question is an interesting one if looked at in a certain way, but as far as the real world is concerned, the question is entirely irrelevant. God made the world. Not us. We don't get to "make up" the world in whatever way we might desire simply in order to make our apologetics efforts more convenient. We have to take the world as it really is. This is the way of truth, truth-seeking, and intellectual honesty and responsibility. As Christians this is our duty, whether we like it or not. Evolution can be one of God's long-term creative forces in biological processes, just as gravity can be one of God's long-range forces by which the matter and energy of the universe is influenced. It doesn't change anything. Living in Christ deals with our hearts, with how we treat each other, non-Christians as well as Christians. In the New Testament, James writes, in one of the most attitude-oriented letters of the NT, that
These are the kinds of things that are important to our lives in Christ. The whole idea that our Christianity is somehow "compromised" or "suspect" simply because we happen to accept certain empirical facts about the real world, facts that some Christians don't like and consider to be "dangerous" based on emotional prejudices arising from the human traditions that have been raised with, is a notion that is rendered absurd when you read such things as James in the New Testament.
Sincerely, |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Genesis-Discussion/message/2731
From: Steve Heiden Dear Mark, Actually, I think there are two "debates." There is one discussion about the topic of creationism. There is also a second discussion (though usually it is "discussed" only by implication within the context of the first discussion), which is regarding whether or not a Christian can reject young earth creationism and still be "a good Christian." I choose to make the latter discussion explicit rather than letting it be referred to only by implication in the background. Clearly, there are many "orthodox Christians" who believe in biblical inerrancy, and who also realize that, for example, the earth has been around a lot longer than just 6,000 years. Accepting this empirical reality about the world (due to learning about the unequivocal information by which it is understood) does not make a Christian "not a good Christian." It means nothing other than that he is an honest Christian. (This is not to imply that a young earth creationist who is not aware of such information — as I myself was unaware of it many years ago — is a dishonest Christian. I am only implying that the Christian who learns about things must accept whatever the truth is, wherever the truth leads him, because it would be wrong for us to be adamant about our own personal beliefs after learning that there is something wrong with them. The truth is what it is, and our human feelings and human traditions are irrelevant considerations with respect to this.) Your "wager" was not concerning aspects of the topic substantive to, say, antiquity or biological evolution, but was about personal perceptions, and so that was what I addressed. I apologize if I came across to you as being disrespectful. I certainly intended no disrespect, and if you perceived any please point it out to me specifically, so I can learn from where my expression went awry and avoid it in the future. I may disagree with specific ideas that you have stated or with ideas that I believe are implied by your statements, and I may express serious criticism of these ideas and implications, but I am focused on the ideas and not criticizing you personally in any way. In my previous post I was specifically advocating respect of all Christians by Christians, regardless of our specific positions with respect to creationism, which is why I quoted extensively from James in the NT.
Sincerely, ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 3:34 PM Subject: Confused "This list is for orthodox Christians only who are interested in a civil discussion about how to interpret the first and second chapters of Genesis. This is a forum for respectful debate and discussion. No foul language or vulgarity allowed. This community is moderated by two people on opposite sides of this issue. We intend to protect each members right to freely express his or her opinion." Why are we debating something which only I seem to think is relevant to anything?
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Genesis-Discussion/message/2748
From: Steve Heiden Hi, Mark. Thank you for your comments. Steve H.: Actually, I think there are two debates. There is one discussion about the topic of creationism. There is also a second discussion (though usually it is discussed only by implication within the context of the first discussion), which is regarding whether or not a Christian can reject young earth creationism and still be a good Christian. I choose to make the latter discussion explicit rather than letting it be referred to only by implication in the background. Mark: As I stated in my previous post to Chris, I don't see any sort of "persecution" as being anywhere near as relevant although, being Catholic, I guess I am not subject to it. Nevertheless, I have never regarded that as an important issue in comparison to the harm done by this false, humanistic teaching. Steve H. (responding): I believe that perhaps I am misunderstanding you. I initially thought that you were referring to the science of biological evolution. Now I think that you are referring more primarily to atheism, so I might agree with you that you have a point. Let's just be careful that we make our connections and distinctions accurately, because biological evolution is just as "atheistic" as, say, astronomy or meteorology. (In other words, all of them are non-theistic in the sense that the purpose of science is to examine things objectively and see how they operate. Saying that we can examine the physical processes involved in meteorology does not mean that we as Christians are saying that God is not involved in the world.) Steve H.: Clearly, there are many orthodox Christians who believe in biblical inerrancy, and who also realize that, for example, the earth has been around a lot longer than just 6,000 years. Accepting this empirical reality about the world (due to learning about the unequivocal information by which it is understood) does not make a Christian not a good Christian. Mark: It is as unequivocal that the Earth cooled in a blink as it is that it is so old and, with respect to the latter, only the distance to the farthest astronomical objects could be viewed as even approaching such as a level. If a way could be found around that, then the other items alleged as evidence of an old Earth could easily be dispensed with. Steve H. (responding): I do not clearly understand your first sentence in its entirety. However, I believe that your statement that "only the distance to the farthest astronomical objects could be viewed as even approaching such as a level" is factually incorrect. First of all, there are literally millions of galaxies in the universe. Of these galaxies, the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) galaxy is the second closest galaxy, and the LMC that we observe right now is actually the LMC as it was more than 150,000 years ago. Well, that's more than 144,000 years to many for young earth creationism — and this is the second closest galaxy to the earth. All of the other galaxies in the universe, except for only one other, are observed from even more distant times in the past. So your statement should instead be that "even the distance to the closest galaxies are viewed as they existed tens of thousands of years prior to the time that young earth creationists claim that the universe was created." Astronomy has proved that young earth creationism is wrong, because it is by astronomy that we have learned that the universe has been around a lot longer than just 6,000 years. I doubt that this can "easily be dispensed with" since this is known with certainty and it is a matter of common knowledge. Steve H.: Your wager was not concerning aspects of the topic substantive to, say, antiquity or biological evolution, but was about personal perceptions, and so that was what I addressed. I apologize if I came across to you as being disrespectful. I certainly intended no disrespect, and if you perceived any please point it out to me specifically, so I can learn from where my expression went awry and avoid it in the future. I may disagree with specific ideas that you have stated or with ideas that I believe are implied by your statements, and I may express serious criticism of these ideas and implications, but I am focused on the ideas and not criticizing you personally in any way. In my previous post I was specifically advocating respect of all Christians by Christians, regardless of our specific positions with respect to creationism, which is why I quoted extensively from James in the NT. Mark: No, I did not see any disrespect. I really was wanting to emphasize the 2nd paragraph, namely, "2 sides of this issue". What issue? Sure, one may believe in ET and be a good Christian (much, much better than yours truly, e.g., although that is not saying much), but there is a correlation between disbelief and this pernicious theory. Anyone who believes, as Naomi stated, that the problem lies completely elsewhere, it seems to me, is obligated to adduce evidence that absolutely no one anywhere could have his faith harmed by this false teaching. I happen to know that is false because of my personal experience. Steve H. (responding): Pernicious? I do not understand how science — meaning objective examination of the real world — is supposed to be pernicious. The real world is the way that it is. Our human desires and human traditions do not determine the nature of the real world. God created the real world, not us. Again, I believe I am seeing you refer to atheism, and not necessarily to biological evolution. If you wish to argue against atheistic philosophy, I shall join you. But if you are trying to argue against objective examination of the world as it is, I will continue to express much criticism of any such arguments. I could just as easily, on the same "logical" basis, argue that Christianity is an evil belief because it promotes anti-Semitism, and look at the millions of people who have been persecuted and killed in the name of Christianity. You and I both know that any such argument is wrong, and we know why it is wrong. So let's not turn around and use the same fallacious argument against other ideas merely because we personally find them undesirable. I would refer you to Kenneth R. Miller's recent book Finding Darwin's God, especially to the latter half of the book. I have read Miller's book. It is well written, and the issues he discusses in the latter half of the book are highly relevant to what we are talking about at the moment. It really seems to me that you are arguing against some kind of atheistic portrayal of evolution than against evolution itself. Again, thank you for your comments. I'm enjoying the stimulation of the discussion.
Sincerely, |