Arguments for EC/TE we should not use


(Reggie O'Donoghue) #1

What arguments for EC/TE should we not use?

I think we should avoid trying to find mentions of evolution, or and old earth in the text itself, like Hugh Ross does, it’s really not there.


(Phil) #2

I would agree with you on that Reggie, but at the same time it is difficult to not grasp at things in the text that might suggest evolution (like the “bring forth” statements in Genesis 1). If we are to be consistent, we should not deny on one hand that Genesis talks of scientific facts and on the other hand propose that it contains them. We have a hard time stepping back from our modern worldview in looking at it.


(James McKay) #3

Well for starters, don’t try objecting to any form of creationism or Intelligent Design on the grounds that it’s “religion, not science” or that it’s “introducing religious presuppositions into science.” Such arguments just sound like you’re introducing anti-religious presuppositions of your own, even if you’re not.

I covered that here:

I’ve also explained why I steer clear of methodological naturalism here:


(Phil) #4

Thanks for sharing that, jammycakes. Good point that we should not argue the “religion” with “science.” While your piece seemed to emphasize applying the same scientific standards to everyone’s science, and not arguing the theology with science, the other side of the coin is that the science is not a proper topic to argue with religion, which is perhaps a major failing of the YEC camp.
Ultimately, we are able, and should, examine the theology with theological arguments. No doubt our knowledge of creation through the hard and soft sciences influences those positions, but should not be primary.


(A.M. Wolfe) #5

When trying to convince most YEC folks, I would suggest that any argument that leads with the science is going to be less productive than an argument that leads with the hermeneutics. The top anti-EC argument (imho) is that EC lets science trump the Bible, and leading with science in such discussions merely reinforces this misconception.

Can science-based arguments work? Well, yes, in a way, in that they can add a few heavy bricks to the load of cognitive dissonance that the YEC must carry with her. But in order to actually resolve the cognitive dissonance, we have to delve into hermeneutics.


(James McKay) #6

My approach to that is not to expect them to accept the science. If you’re approaching it with a mentality of “evolution is a fact, get over it,” you’re not going to get anywhere. Instead, I merely say that if they want to refute the science, they need to make sure that they are getting their facts straight about it. I make it clear that rejecting science may be faith, but misrepresenting science is lying – and furthermore, complaining about “evolutionist lies” when you’re not getting your own facts straight is hypocrisy.


(Jacob) #7

This often gets turned into a faith vs. conventional science argument, as in you can only choose one or the other. One thing I notice time after time is that a follower of the New Atheism or a similar skeptic will start an argument with science but quickly switch to philosophical naturalism or even moral relativism, while the Christian will be using YEC as a tool to refute some science claim. And the YEC follower might not even notice the skeptic changed the argument to philosophy. I wish more Christians could be helped to see this trap and that there is more than atheistic naturalism or YEC.


(Phil) #8

Yep, it has been said that more ministers come to accept evolution in seminary than in science class.


(Mervin Bitikofer) #9

Hence the suspicion many fundamentalists have of various seminaries and colleges …“faith cemeteries” I’ve heard them derisively called. Pretty much any institution that has embedded in its mission somewhere or somehow to cultivate the critical thinking abilities of its clientele is going to run afoul the crowd that is more interested in promoting obedience over discernment; docile acceptance over wrestling.

So it isn’t just evolution though that is certainly part of this larger culture war. I think one ‘no-no’ is for the ‘free-spirits’ who frequent the latter categories here to think they can just plop their outlook down in front of those at home in the former categories, and expect them to suddenly “see the light”. I think one more gentle approach is to do the best one can showing how “wrestling” is not the same as “faith rejection”, and then to not expect others to make “journey leaps” that we grew into over years and decades.


(Reggie O'Donoghue) #10

(system) #11

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.