Letter to My Pastor

[RufusAtticus]

This is an interesting letter sent by a poster named K-Man to his pastor two years ago. It deals with church politics and the discussion of origins.

Letter to My Pastor

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
This is an interesting letter sent by a poster named K-Man to his pastor two years ago. It deals with church politics and the discussion of origins.

Letter to My Pastor

That is a wonderful letter. The man who wrote it was strong in his faith; imagine the courage it took to write that letter!

 

[RufusAtticus]

Bump because I want to.

 

[ZiSunka]

When we move into the early 20th century, the heyday of the Fundamentalist anti-evolution crusaders, we find that, though they may have opposed aspects of evolution, very few held to a belief in a young earth.

Acutally, at the early 20th century, most Christians gave no thought at all to anything other than the creation story of the Bible, as did most non-Christians. Although Darwin's books had long been published, they really didn't catch on until the 1920's to 30's. Even many scientists gave little credence to Darwin's books and theories until that time.

It wasn't until the Scopes Trial that the average person gave any thought to evolution. And most people never bothered reading Darwin's actual writings. They just (as now) believed what they were TOLD the books said.

Progressive creation was the liberal church's answer to evolution. It allowed Christians to continue to believe in God, but at the same time, tip their hats to evolution. It allowed them to completely bypass the issue, giving them an explanation that knits both belief systems into one theory.

Like creationism, it is neither good science nor good theology. There is nothing to support its tennants, other than whatever fertile imaginations can make up.

Lest you think that I am an evolutionist, I must tell you that I am not. I recognize that God created everything, but not the idea that He created it little by little.

I design nature parks for a living, making ecosystems, etc. Although the process of recovery for barren land is progressive, the design, the plan, the execution of the plan is not. The whole thing is planned and constructed, at once, whenever funds permit. To think that God didn't make everything in a relatively short time negates the reality of good planning, but it negates the reality of the Bible as well. From experience (almost 20 years) I can tell you that things that are progessively planned and built get so screwed up that they become disfunctional and worthless.

However, we know that the earth is neither disfunctional nor worthless. It functions quite well to support us, despite our best attempts to screw it up.

Have you looked into Intelligent Design at all? Moody radio has an excellent program about it, but I can't for the life of me remember what it is called. I used to listen everyday in Cleveland, but we don't have a Moody station around here.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by lambslove
I design nature parks for a living, making ecosystems, etc. Although the process of recovery for barren land is progressive, the design, the plan, the execution of the plan is not. The whole thing is planned and constructed, at once, whenever funds permit. To think that God didn't make everything in a relatively short time negates the reality of good planning, but it negates the reality of the Bible as well. From experience (almost 20 years) I can tell you that things that are progessively planned and built get so screwed up that they become disfunctional and worthless.

Basically, you are so sure God would model his creation after your experiences in landscape design that the mere possibility that he found a way to do "progressive planning" that would not leave things so screwed up that they become dysfunctional and worthless, that the whole concept seems foreign and untrustworthy to you?

If creationism is bad science and bad theology, then ID, which seems to postulate a God that mimics human design methods, is at least as poor science and worse theology.

 

[Starscream]

From experience (almost 20 years) I can tell you that things that are progessively planned and built get so screwed up that they become disfunctional and worthless.

This is simply untrue to your software engineer. Mind you, I don't have 20 years experience, but I'm a fast learner.

I find often that it is unwise to interpolate my personal experiences with something unto other fields.

 

[Starscream]

BTW, that was a remarkable letter. YEC's could learn a great deal from it...

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Starscream

This is simply untrue to your software engineer. Mind you, I don't have 20 years experience, but I'm a fast learner.

I find often that it is unwise to interpolate my personal experiences with something unto other fields.

Seconded - also coming from a software engineer. Some things are best evolved; others best designed all at once. Often, the best thing to do is design something all at once, then learn from your errors.

That said, I still have a hard time imagining how anyone could deny the age of the earth. It seems so weird.

 

[ardipithecus]

Originally posted by lambslove


Acutally, at the early 20th century, most Christians gave no thought at all to anything other than the creation story of the Bible, as did most non-Christians. Although Darwin's books had long been published, they really didn't catch on until the 1920's to 30's. Even many scientists gave little credence to Darwin's books and theories until that time.

This is not accurate history. Gee my 1910 set of "The Harvard Classics" has two volumes of Darwin in it. Darwin's ideas of natural selection did not become popular until well into the 20th century outside of naturalist circles. But Darwin's suggestion of common descent was became nearly universally accepted among biologists long before Darwin died. I might also point out that Darwin was actually quite a respected figure in science before he uttered one public word about evolution.

It wasn't until the Scopes Trial that the average person gave any thought to evolution. And most people never bothered reading Darwin's actual writings. They just (as now) believed what they were TOLD the books said.

Actually I would say that the vast majority of people today have never bothered reading Darwin's actual writings either. The public debate on evolution pre-dates the Scopes Trial by quite some time. You might try to find The Creationists by Ronald Numbers. That book was even endorsed by Henry Morris of the ICR. And for that matter, that there a huge public uproar over Darwin's ideas in his own time is hardly a big secret.