Peter Henderson
Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007
|
I've a lot of respect for Jason Rosenhouse. I admire his dedication in attending YEC conferences and taking the time to write concise and informative reports while at the same time exposing how they distort ( and in many cases by fraudulent means) mainstream science.
However, as a Chrtistian who supports evolution I'm a bit worried about Jason's recent rantings attacking Theistic evolutionists etc.:
http://scienceblogs.com/evoluti...._ev.php
| Quote | | Seriously, the desperation here is palpable. Theistic evolutionists have made great concessions to achieve their reconciliation of Christianity with evolution. Perspicuity of scripture? Gone. Natural theology? Pointless. Argument from Design? Fuhgeddabout it. The sort of beliefs that are justified by evidence and defended rationally are granted to science. Religious beliefs are justified by recourse to ill-defined “eyes of faith” and the desire of believers to feel at home in the universe (whatever that means). They've conceded about ninety percent of the territory on which science and religion clash. But still a lot of scientists won't even give them that last ten percent. How frustrating that must be for them. |
http://scienceblogs.com/evoluti....hp#more
| Quote | | But I do think a remark is in order. If we are to judge them by their best representatives then creationists take their Biblical analysis very seriously indeed. They endorse the young-Earth position because they genuinely believe (with considerable justice) that this is what was intended by the writer of Genesis. I am sympathetic to this view, as I have written before. The arguments I have seen defending alternatives like the day-age theory, the gap theory, or the framework hypothesis are not convincing. |
http://scienceblogs.com/evoluti....hp#more
| Quote | | In a number of recent posts I have remarked that when it comes to Biblical analysis, I think the young-Earthers have more going for them than is sometimes acknowledged. I have also commented that I have been generally unimpressed with the more highbrow sorts of Biblical exegesis I have seen with regard to the text of Genesis. |
| Quote | | Even worse, Gingerich's points do not make sense. He asks us to see a concordance between God's creation of light in verse three of Genesis with the picture painted by the Big Bang model. Sadly, by the time we reach verse three the heavens (which presumably refers to space) and the Earth have already been created. The Earth even has water on it. I'd say that's a big point of departure between the Bible and the Big Bang. |
| Quote | | The young-Earthers make sense. They're out of their minds, but they make sense |
and evolutionary scientists then expect Christians to take part in evolution Sunday etc. ?????
I really can't see what Jason's point is in attacking Christians who accept evolution (i.e. mainstream science). I certainly have no sympathy for the YECs who, in my opinion have damaged the church irreparably. Is he perhaps contemplating becoming a YEC ? Certainly any of the testimonys of YECs who were atheists had similar positions to that of Rosenhouse (i.e.they had no respect for TEs).
So can i have some clarrification on this point i.e. It's perfectly acceptable for Christians to accept evolution ??? Wesley: you have not agreed with my points on the clergy letter project. However, it would appear that Dr./Professor Rosenhouse does not accept/has no respect for Christians such as myself who have absolutely no problem with mainstream science.
I certainly have no respect for YECs whatsoever. I think they have damaged the church irreperably. While many may be very sincere people(many of my relatives are YECs/old Earth creationists) they are seriously misguided, often through a lack of knowledge/education. I detest those who are well educated in the movement even more, especially those taking part in the conference that Jason has just reported on.
Most Christians who accept evolution would, by and large, be TEs
|
