Jus' Akskin

[Mallon]

Creationists have societies like AiG, CRS, DI, and countless other organizations that can't agree on anything (which is why there are so many).

'Evolutionists' of all stripes have the NCSE and other more localized clubs.

But are there strictly TE societies out there promoting science education and Christianity side-by-side?

 

[Willtor]

I know there will be a lot of people who think of a particularly TE club as something akin to a Theistic Gravity club, but I'm going to argue the other way. At least in America, given the social climate and the typical views of evolution, I think it would be nice to have such a group. I don't know if one exists, and the closest thing of which I'm aware is a general Christians In Science group that someone on these forums cited, once.

 

[gluadys]

Creationists have societies like AiG, CRS, DI, and countless other organizations that can't agree on anything (which is why there are so many).

'Evolutionists' of all stripes have the NCSE and other more localized clubs.

But are there strictly TE societies out there promoting science education and Christianity side-by-side?

The American Scientific Affiliation is one of the oldest such societies, but it is for professional scientists. I don't know of a similar group that includes scientific amateurs.

The group Willtor referred to, Christians in Science, is not TE. It supports Intelligent Design, not evolution. I have heard that it is the new name of Answers in Genesis outside of the US, but I am not sure of that.

I don't know why TEs have not developed an organizational structure. Perhaps because it is unnecessary from a scientific perspective. What is already available through the NSCE, talkorigins, and other sources amply supplies what is needed scientifically.

However, I would appreciate a place to discuss TE theology, and so far, this sub-forum seems to be it.

 

[jereth]

Australia has a fantastic organisation called ISCAST. (www.iscast.org.au). ISCAST is a Science and Christianity organisation, and is vocally TE.

The group Willtor referred to, Christians in Science, is not TE. It supports Intelligent Design, not evolution. I have heard that it is the new name of Answers in Genesis outside of the US, but I am not sure of that.

You're confusing CIS with CMI. CMI is the organisation that fractured from AiG. (BTW, does anyone understand why this AiG/CMI fracture occurred? It took me completely by surprise, and there's nothing to explain it on the AiG website)

 

[shernren]

(BTW, does anyone understand why this AiG/CMI fracture occurred? It took me completely by surprise, and there's nothing to explain it on the AiG website)

One particularly intriguing exercise is to compare the following two pages:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996/84/

Then search AiG's website for "Kent Hovind" (the keyword I used) and see how you can't find this:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2571/

One certainly can spin a lot of conspiracy theories out of that simple comparison. Here are three vocally anti-creationist critics' viewpoints:

http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/03/answers-in-genesis-schism-us-group.html
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-679QwMkib6enGIsUE2Z09ARZQczZ?l=16&u=20&mx=27&lmt=5&p=13
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/AiG_cow.htm

 

[gluadys]

Australia has a fantastic organisation called ISCAST. (www.iscast.org.au). ISCAST is a Science and Christianity organisation, and is vocally TE.



You're confusing CIS with CMI. CMI is the organisation that fractured from AiG. (BTW, does anyone understand why this AiG/CMI fracture occurred? It took me completely by surprise, and there's nothing to explain it on the AiG website)

Thanks. I knew there had been a split, but was unsure of the alternate name.

 

[Assyrian]

The group Willtor referred to, Christians in Science, is not TE. It supports Intelligent Design, not evolution.

I realise this has been answered, but there is a really good article there on design.
http://cis.org.uk/resources/articles/article_archive/barclay_design.pdf

To the biblical writers the processes of ‘nature’ that science is exploring today are as much the work of God as the existence of the world itself...

God is presented as the One who has deliberately brought into being and maintains a world that can support life. So the state of the world is evidence not only for the existence and power of God but also for his kindness and care for his creation.

Does this include an argument for design? Clearly if it is God who has created and rules ‘nature’, deliberately for the good of living things, including humanity, then his design is implied in the way that things are organised. But this is a very different stance from those arguments for design which seek to show that some of the particular findings of science point to a Great Designer. Instead the biblical writers see the existence, and the generosity of God to humanity, in the whole panoply of the created order and its ongoing processes.

Willtor will love his treatment of providence. As well as his assertion that:

This lack of a strong view of providence in the ID position can easily merge into semi-deism.

 

[gluadys]

I realise this has been answered, but there is a really good article there on design.
http://cis.org.uk/resources/articles/article_archive/barclay_design.pdf


Willtor will love his treatment of providence. As well as his assertion that:

​

Perhaps I should have looked beyond the headlines.

 

[Willtor]

The American Scientific Affiliation is one of the oldest such societies, but it is for professional scientists. I don't know of a similar group that includes scientific amateurs.

The group Willtor referred to, Christians in Science, is not TE. It supports Intelligent Design, not evolution. I have heard that it is the new name of Answers in Genesis outside of the US, but I am not sure of that.

I don't know why TEs have not developed an organizational structure. Perhaps because it is unnecessary from a scientific perspective. What is already available through the NSCE, talkorigins, and other sources amply supplies what is needed scientifically.

However, I would appreciate a place to discuss TE theology, and so far, this sub-forum seems to be it.

It isn't TE, officially, but some of the writers are. I haven't read any ID papers on there (but, then, I've only read maybe 6 articles, so they may be there).

Willtor will love his treatment of providence. As well as his assertion that:

This lack of a strong view of providence in the ID position can easily merge into semi-deism.

This is one of the things I've been seeing in the articles I've read. Although they don't take an official stance on it, many of the writers warn about the theological dangers of looking at nature in particular ways. And, surprise, surprise, those ways tend to be the implicit bases for ID and YEC.

 

[jereth]

One particularly intriguing exercise is to compare the following two pages:

Then search AiG's website for "Kent Hovind" (the keyword I used) and see how you can't find this:

One certainly can spin a lot of conspiracy theories out of that simple comparison. Here are three vocally anti-creationist critics' viewpoints:

Hmmm. It certainly is interesting that AiG and CMI aren't talking about what for them must definitely be a earth shattering split. Suppose they can't complain about the conspiracy theories!

What is more interesting still is what the split reveals about the socio-cultural backdrop of YECism. Sooner or later the rabid fundamentalist American YECists (Hovind et al) were going to assert their influence, causing more moderate Christians, such as those in Australia and Canada, to back off. Yet the roots of AiG were in Australia, and most of their brainpower was non-American (Weiland, Sarfati, Batten).

So where does that leave American creationism? Will we see AiG drift more and more towards Hovindist extremism, now that the tempering influence of CMI is gone?

 

[shernren]

Hmmm. It certainly is interesting that AiG and CMI aren't talking about what for them must definitely be a earth shattering split. Suppose they can't complain about the conspiracy theories!

What is more interesting still is what the split reveals about the socio-cultural backdrop of YECism. Sooner or later the rabid fundamentalist American YECists (Hovind et al) were going to assert their influence, causing more moderate Christians, such as those in Australia and Canada, to back off. Yet the roots of AiG were in Australia, and most of their brainpower was non-American (Weiland, Sarfati, Batten).

So where does that leave American creationism? Will we see AiG drift more and more towards Hovindist extremism, now that the tempering influence of CMI is gone?

The biggie, of course, is that they aren't talking about each other (except wherever CMI has to formally admit that it was formerly a part of AiG). But it's really a horrifying testimony against neo-creationism. Not only are we seeing a break-up between Christians here, but Christians who are apparently completely committed to defending Scriptural inerrancy and have torn up the evolutionist orthodoxy in the process. You'd think such a grand mission would unite any amount of disparate personalities, especially scientists passionately seeking the truth and disillusioned with the establishment.

But, no - sooner or later there's going to be one creationist movement for each creationist personality around. Are there really so many ways to refute evolution, and why do so many of them seem suspiciously inter-contradictory? Or maybe this is what happens when different people have "different interpretations of the same evidence".

 

[jereth]

But it's really a horrifying testimony against neo-creationism. Not only are we seeing a break-up between Christians here, but Christians who are apparently completely committed to defending Scriptural inerrancy

Before we put on our party hats, perhaps we'd best remember that the entire history of Protestantism is marked by Christians who are "completely committed to defending Scriptural inerrancy" breaking up into ever smaller splinter groups

But I do get your meaning. What's terrible here is the lack of public transparency over what has happened. One would think that the hundreds of people who have given financial support to AiG would have the right to know the truth about why their organisation has split up. And yet ... silence.

But, no - sooner or later there's going to be one creationist movement for each creationist personality around.

Sooner or later?

Are there really so many ways to refute evolution, and why do so many of them seem suspiciously inter-contradictory?

Tell me about it! It boggles the mind to see the number of global flood mechanisms, the number of explanations for distant starlight, etc. -- all totally inconsistent with each other. It seems the only things they agree on are (A) evolution is wrong and (B) Christians who believe evolution are traitors!

 

[theFijian]

The group Willtor referred to, Christians in Science, is not TE. It supports Intelligent Design, not evolution. I have heard that it is the new name of Answers in Genesis outside of the US, but I am not sure of that.

CiS are vocally anti-Creationist. They sent a letter to Tony Blair several years ago speaking out against the teaching of Creationism in schools. There's also a good article supporting evolution.