radical dichomotomy

[rmwilliamsll]

Either God created life independantly to procreate according to kinds or it was the result of a random, mindless, coincidential naturalistic process.

this expresses a common YECist and vocal atheistic materialist contention.

What i find interesting is the the extremes, both left and right, have an interest in furthering the polarization of the argument. For the YECist their immediate opponents are not the Dawkins, Dennett and SJG's of this world but the Millers, Grays, and Van Till's. Those Christians who would propose that God did use evolution which makes the end result NOT chancy, not random, but purposeful.

I believe that the logical error of both positions is called the excluded middle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
and in the heat of arguments it is easy to demonize your enemies and believe that it is either for you or against you. But these positions have been debated for several generations now, there really aren't any surprises in general beliefs, yet the YECist continue with this radical polarization.

why?
Part of it ties into the constant discussion here about YECist believing their's is the only fully Biblical and Christian POV. Part of it exists in the psychology of both extremes, it just seems to attract people with low tolerance for ambiguity and a strong need for certainty and exclusivity. Part of the answer ought to exist in the fact that the battle is a religious one, and religious wars really tend not to take prisoners.

But that still doesn't seem to answer the questions of why? Why does AiG in particular attempt to radically polarize the issue so that many YECists do not even know that most Christians worldview are not YEC's. AiG can read the polls, they realize that the Roman Catholic position is TE, why this concentration on polarization?

 

[Maccie]

why this concentration on polarization?

I have often wondered!! And of course, Orthodox Christians are not YEC's either.

Do you think they (the YEC's) actually realise they are in a minority??

Keep up the good work, rmwilliamsll!!

 

[Remus]

Before I commnet on this, could you provide the actual quote for this? I assume that you got this from AiG?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

AiG has lots of essays directed at TE.

for instance:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp

Danger no. 3: Denial of Central Biblical Teachings

The entire Bible bears witness that we are dealing with a source of truth authored by God (2 Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament as the indispensable 'ramp' leading to the New Testament, like an access road leads to a motor freeway (John 5:39). The biblical creation account should not be regarded as a myth, a parable, or an allegory, but as a historical report, because:

*

Biological, astronomical and anthropological facts are given in didactic [teaching] form.
*

In the Ten Commandments God bases the six working days and one day of rest on the same time-span as that described in the creation account (Exodus 20:8-11).
*

In the New Testament Jesus referred to facts of the creation (e.g. Matthew 19:4-5).
*

Nowhere in the Bible are there any indications that the creation account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report.

The doctrine of theistic evolution undermines this basic way of reading the Bible, as vouched for by Jesus, the prophets and the Apostles. Events reported in the Bible are reduced to mythical imagery, and an understanding of the message of the Bible as being true in word and meaning is lost.

a variant of the common theme here of only YECists are truely Biblical conservatives and take the Bible seriously.

the line
Biological, astronomical and anthropological facts are given in didactic [teaching] form.
is especially interesting because it lacks the differentiation of where the Bible is using ideas to communicate something (four corners of the earth) and the teaching for all time and places, normative (flat earth science). Everything the Bible says is not normative, as in we must do it, for instance: slavery and polygamy, but rather these cultural items are being used to teach transcultural ideas....

...

 

[Vance]

The OP is very true, not of all YEC's, but definitely most, and the most vocal. This also the basis for my "strange bedfellows" idea where the YEC's and militant atheists feed off of each other, quote each other for their own ends, ignoring all those in the middle who do NOT say that evolution requires no God or that the Bible excludes the possiblity of evolution.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The OP is very true, not of all YEC's, but definitely most, and the most vocal. This also the basis for my "strange bedfellows" idea where the YEC's and militant atheists feed off of each other, quote each other for their own ends, ignoring all those in the middle who do NOT say that evolution requires no God or that the Bible excludes the possiblity of evolution.

strange bedfellows, the ends of the spectrum folded together- like a piece of paper, making them mirror images of each other rather than polar opposites. interesting images.



if we return to the fruitful metaphor of the two books,
YECists propose that we can only get valid knowledge from Scripture and the atheist says only from nature. TE in general want to harmony the books due to the fact that they are both from the hand of God. YECists say scientists are lying about the age of the earth/universe and atheists contend that the Bible is full of lies.
Mirror images, feeding off of one another's frenzy.

...

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I have a couple of essays on just this:

http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/thelie.htm
http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/10dangers.htm

 

[Remus]

this expresses a common YECist and vocal atheistic materialist contention.

First off, I want to thank you for showing discretion and pm’ing me the link to this quote. With that said, I have to say that this is the worst case of misquoting that I’ve seen in a long time. To address this person’s conclusion, you have to address the part that you left out, which is the argument that he uses to justify stating that there are only two possibilities.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

thank you for the pointers to your essays Karl, i don't believe i realized that was your website.

I thought about this issue of the similiar of atheists and YECist in trying to sweep clean the positions between them so to have simply the 2 extremes. But it was in relationship to manichaeism and gnosticism. I saw it as a impulse to color the nuances of the world in black and white, the inability to make fine distinctions. (see: http://www.livejournal.com/users/rmwilliamsjr/60960.html for this thinking)

I've seen the siege mentality in the conservative community, of which YEC is a part. If you see yourself as involved in a life and death struggle with the powers of darkness and Satan, there really isn't middle ground, nor incentive towards any compromise. But is that really the case in creation-evolution-design? Or is the metaphor of a battle between light and darkness being unjustly and deceptively imposed on the discussion? This is the greater issue that haunts these forums. It is why the refrain, TE's are Christians first and evolutionary a distant 2nd, or simply TE's are as Christian as YEC, continually gets posted and reposted. Because YECists in general seem unable or unwilling to understand that evolutionary theory is primarily science and not religion.

When Jesus says: Mat 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
He reinforces this inclusive-exclusive metaphor in many people's thinking. It helps add strength to the lager mentality, it helps to draw more firmly the boundary lines between us and them. I would argue that is not the Lord's intention here to 'clear the middle ground between YEC and atheist in the CED debate'. To make all discussions, in all fields either for or against Christ. But that appears to me to be the logically conclusion to this mentality. Maybe that is what happened historically since Darwin and accompanies the great liberal-conservative split in the church, in which evolution and higher criticism played primary roles. i don't know.

But what i do know, is that the creation evolution design debate is not an either or discussion. It is not just a choice between YEC and the atheistic materialistic random meaningless etc etc... but purpose, meaning, significance are the direct result of God's providence and character, and are reflected in the conditions of ourselves and our universe. That is the great disservice of YEC to the discussion, they wish to withdraw the boundary of legitimate Christian thought from TE and make Christians believe that they can not be faithful to God and understand the truthfulness of evolutionary theory. This is the radical dichotomy, the sweeping clean of middle positions, the you are with us or against Jesus mentality.

...

 

[rmwilliamsll]

i intend to just collect the quotes i find on this issue here:
demonstrate how common of an argument it is.

This desire of evolutionists to prove God wrong is the antithesis of believing in God. why do they not simply believe God's version of events? If you are not an evolutionist, I applaud you because the truth can only be found in reality, not in the imagination.

from: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=11233827&postcount=35

and the appropriate response(just a few postings down, deserving of reps):
This is garbage. I have no interest in "proving God wrong." Just in proving YOU wrong.

either or: either you believe in God or you are an evolutionist. no middle ground.
-----

So instead of becoming an atheist, I became a theistic evolutionist. But had I not been exposed to theistic evolution, I would have given up on the Christian God completely. So kudos to those of you who keep repeating "Evolution does not equal atheism." For some of us, this realization had made an enormous difference.

from: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=11176524&postcount=638

----

One would like to hope, but having been at this for 10 years and having had hopes dashed several thousand times, it is hard to think that any of the YECs are going to pay any attention to anything rational at all. The problem I have is that there have been over those 10 years several hundred young scientists who grew up YEC and were on their way to atheism because the YECs didn't teach them what they are finding in the data they see at their jobs and schools. Thus, I get to try to pick up the broken peices of lives destroyed by the YEC belief. That is one of the reasons I still even try.

Glenn Morton at: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=888373&postcount=36

-----

Disraeli may be speaking for some people today that hold to the idea that we are the creation of God. We are created in His image. The Bible teaches this. Evolution denies it. The Bible clearly states that we were created by God. Evolution denies this. Most people who adopt the Theory of Evolution believe we are evolved from lower life forms.

Elohiym, created us, the same Creator who created the universe.

from: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/t46362

--->these have been just from about an hour of thread reading, not even looking particular hard.

last post edit addition---->
one way of looking at the issues is how do we set and maintain boundaries. for instance:

Spong is a member of the family, so to speak. Yet he agrees with the skeptic that the claims of literalism and inerrancy in biblical texts are a distortion of literature, history and science. Can any informed, rational, modern person take seriously the claim made in Genesis 3:7 that a conversation took place between a human and a snake?

from: http://www.herald-mail.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=102292&format=html
an interesting article against fundamentalism.

what interests me is that a BIG boundary is between supernaturalists and naturalists. 'informed, rational, modern' are not adjectives that are applied as descriptives but as polemics in this discussion. This author is doing the same thing, the radical polarization of one discussion by reference to another one.

likewise when he writes:

It needs to be made clear that opposition to fundamentalism does not mean that suppression is called for. The best way to contain fundamentalism is to teach people to think. Facts and reason will, in the long run, win out over self-imposed ignorance. Evangelicals try to short-circuit this process by pulpit thumping and loud shouting. But this will not add force to their case.

he is conflating things. In particular, education with his philosophy, hence the idea that history and good education will naturally produce me and my kind of thinking.

it is my belief that the radical polarization doesn't help the rational understanding of the issues, but rather confuses things and people. by making distinctions, by striving to understand we can separate the theory of evolution as a scientific model from its use as a pillar of a scientism, a materialistic worldview. by making this distinction of levels in the discussion we can see that the big issues are on the metaphysical level and join the good fight there.



...

 

[California Tim]

... ignoring all those in the middle who do NOT say that evolution requires no God or that the Bible excludes the possiblity of evolution.

Kind of like those "lukewarm" types that Christ mentioned? The "happy medium crowd". The "why can't we all get along" party. The salt that "lost its saltiness" bunch. Yep, those centrists have got it all over us "fundies".

 

[Vance]

Kind of like those "lukewarm" types that Christ mentioned? The "happy medium crowd". The "why can't we all get along" party. The salt that "lost its saltiness" bunch. Yep, those centrists have got it all over us "fundies".

A false dichotomy. You are associating those who see the truth in this area between the two extremes with having a "lukewarm" faith, which is ridiculous . Do you not think I hold my belief, regardless of where it is on the spectrum, any less "hotly"? What about those on the right of your own beliefs, those who take the even further extreme of geocentrism? They do, indeed, see YEC'ists as compromisers and not as "pure" in their dedication to Biblical literalism. Do you blithely accept their characterization of yourself in that light?

Did Paul lose his saltiness when he fought against the ultra-conservatives within the Church? When he sought to remove the unecessary stumbling-blocks, was he just joining the "happy medium crowd", just hoping everyone would "get along"?

I have never in my life been one to compromise my Faith, to attempt to "get along". I have always simply sought the truth, and the proper reading of God's Holy Scripture. And I do so zealously, without the least hint of lukewarmness.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Kind of like those "lukewarm" types that Christ mentioned? The "happy medium crowd". The "why can't we all get along" party. The salt that "lost its saltiness" bunch. Yep, those centrists have got it all over us "fundies".

What Jesus is talking about is the message that HE is the MESSIAH. What is happening is that this legitimate boundary is being extended way past 'who believes in Jesus' to cover things like: who votes for Bush, who is anti-abortion, who would punish homosexual behavior, who is YEC etc etc.... these are the hotbutton issues in the conservative Christian community. And they are all mixed up with who is or who is not a Christian.

TE's can be as orthodox, as Biblical, as Christian as any YEC. obvious example is Terry Gray, or Howard Van Till. but YECist must clear out that middle ground so that the false dichotomy: either for evolution or for Jesus is the only choice that people see.

...

 

[Maccie]

TE's can be as orthodox, as Biblical, as Christian as any YEC.

Shouldn't that be TE's ARE as orthodox, as Biblical, as Christian as any YEC??

Let's not forget that the YEC's are only a tiny minority amongst the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, the many varieties of Protestants, to say nothing of the Coptic Christians, Armenian Christians etc. (Though mind you, they can shout louder than any other Christian. That doesn't make them bigger, better or more Biblical. Just louder)

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Shouldn't that be TE's ARE as orthodox, as Biblical, as Christian as any YEC??

Let's not forget that the YEC's are only a tiny minority amongst the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, the many varieties of Protestants, to say nothing of the Coptic Christians, Armenian Christians etc. (Though mind you, they can shout louder than any other Christian. That doesn't make them bigger, better or more Biblical. Just louder)

i don't think so, because there is no direct cause and effect type of relationship between TE and theology. TE is just too broad a label. For instance, i think that the left most edge of TE is consistently liberal in their theology. Even here you can see the obvious difference between people who see Adam and Eve as literal historical figures and those who see them as only figurative, metaphorical or eponymous.
I think there is a right left spectrum (see it in Evolution from Creation to New Creation by Peters and Hewlett as well) in TE and like most conservatives i think that there is a place where liberalism theologically becomes not-Christian but that is for another forum.

another for instance, many TE's are process theologians and are panentheists, certainly not orthodox Christians.

 

[California Tim]

Tell me, does being a centrist preclude having a sense of humor? You are all much too uptight. I believe we're all friends here - or at least brothers and sisters. I'm in a rare mood here.... let's not waste it.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Tell me, does being a centrist preclude having a sense of humor? You are all much too uptight. I believe we're all friends here - or at least brothers and sisters. I'm in a rare mood here.... let's not waste it.

It's sad that we can't always tell the good-natured joking from the geunine condemnation.

That's why God created smileys... or did they evolve?

 

[Remus]

rmw, can you fill me in on what "evolutionary creationist" is?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

rmw, can you fill me in on what "evolutionary creationist" is?

there are a series of similiar labels for what we currently label TE or theistic evolutionist.

providential evolutionist or evolutionary creationist

see : http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm
for an excellent defense of the term.

this is his first paragraph

Evolutionary creation claims the Father, Son and Holy Spirit created the universe and life through an evolutionary process. This position fully embraces both the religious beliefs of conservative Christianity and the scientific theories of cosmological, geological and biological evolution. It contends that God ordains and sustains the laws of nature, including the mechanisms of evolution. More specifically, evolution is 'teleological,' and features plan, purpose and promise. In particular, this view of origins asserts that humanity evolved from primate ancestors, and during this natural process the Image of God arose and sin entered the world. Evolutionary creationists experience God's presence and action in their lives. They contend that the Lord meets men and women in a personal relationship, which at times involves both dramatic and subtle miraculous signs and wonders.

and from the 2nd paragraph the reason for the term

Evolutionary creationists are first and foremost thoroughly committed and unapologetic creationists. They believe that the universe is a created reality that is absolutely dependent for its every moment of existence on the will and grace of the Creator. The qualifying word in this term is the adjective 'evolutionary,' indicating the method through which God created the world.

it is a good essay and worth the time to read.

 

[Vance]

I think Gluadys suggested this term earlier, since "theistic evolutionist" seemed to be describing just a branch of evolutionist thinking, which distorts the image of where TE's come from. All TE's are creationist in the sense that we fully accept the Scriptural account that God is the Creator of everything.

As for a sense of humor, it becomes much less amusing when something is said jokingly that many say seriously and that the speaker has said seriously (or things like it). Of course, if Tim was simply parodying what another YEC may, say as a joke, then I apologize for thinking he meant any of it seriously.