Posted on 03/10/2007 11:07:03 AM PST by balch3
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (BP)--Secular scientists who fear allowing the conclusions of creationism into secular universities have good reason to be afraid because they are accountable to the creator, Kurt Wise, professor of theology and science at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said on the Albert Mohler Radio Program in February.
“If it’s true that there was a creation, then you realize that means there’s someone in control,” Wise said on the broadcast hosted daily by Southern Seminary’s president. “And if there was a flood -- in other words, a creator who actually judged this creation -- that means we’re in big trouble. So I think there’s every reason why an evolutionist would be very frightened of creationists advocating creationism.”
Wise appeared on the Feb. 13 show to comment on discussion stirred by recent news articles on evolution in commemoration of what would have been Charles Darwin 198th birthday Feb. 12. A USA Today article pointed out that some secular scientists are upset over the fact that a number of creationists have obtained doctoral degrees from major universities recently.
Wise earned a Ph.D. at Harvard University in paleontology under late evolutionist Stephen J. Gould. Mohler noted that famed evolutionist Richard Dawkins called Wise “the greatest disappointment he knows in modern science” -- a designation Mohler said should be worn with pride.
“I am absolutely thrilled you end up in the center of his target, and that’s why you are on the program today,” Mohler said. “It’s because you have so boldly set out the case. Richard Dawkins can’t imagine anyone who understands modern science in terms of its theory and history and paradigm and model and still believes the words, ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’”
It is important for Christians to talk about evolution, Mohler noted, because too often believers have responded inadequately to the challenges of Darwinism.
“For the better part of two centuries the Christian church has been trying to figure out how to respond to the challenge of Darwinian theory and the prevailing evolutionary model,” Mohler said. “I’ll just be very candid to say that in so many cases the church has failed.”
The two greatest errors Christians have made are capitulating to evolution on one hand and rejecting it in an unintelligent way on the other hand, Mohler said.
Wise argued that accepting the Bible’s account of creation makes intellectual sense.
“If you want a correct account of an event, you want an eyewitness,” Wise said. “You want an eyewitness who’s reliable. You want an eyewitness who understands. Who better than God Himself? If He really is the creator, then He has the accurate account. How could a scientist thousands of years later, who wasn’t there, actually have a better account of the origin than God Himself?”
Modern science is limited because it draws conclusions based only on the things scientists can observe and experience, Wise said.
Scientists “cannot deduce anything about a creation,” he said. “They’ve never seen a creation before -- not a creation out of nothing of the universe. Their experience is limited to what they see and hear in the present. With those kinds of limitations, they couldn’t possibly deduce the right thing about the beginning of things.”
Humans cannot separate science and religion because scientists begin their work with assumptions about the world that are “deeply religious,” Wise said, adding, “Science drips with theology. You cannot do science without making theological assumptions.”
Mohler pointed to the writings of prominent evolutionists as evidence that theology and science overlap.
“All you have to do is read the evolutionists,” he said. “They’re always talking about the meaning of life. Richard Dawkins tries to find it in the mystery in the sheer accidental nature of the whole thing. The late Carl Sagan tried to find it in the immensity of what appears to the human eye to be limitless space.... You can’t talk about humanity without talking about the meaning of human life.”
In response to a question from a caller, Mohler and Wise said they believe the earth is relatively young because they trust the Bible’s account of creation as accurate and straightforward.
“At the end of the day, I cannot interpret the straightforward words, sentences and propositions of Genesis 1-11 any differently than Romans 1-11,” Mohler said. “So that’s why I hold to a young earth.”
Wise agreed.
“It seems to be a clear reading of Scripture that God told us that the earth is young,” he said. “And I hold that position for that reason. I also believe that science is such that these (evolutionary theories) are theories of humans. So if it’s a choice between God’s clear Word and humans’ reason, then I’m going to take God’s Word.”
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.... Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."
St. Augustine
On the Literal Meaning of Genesis
(pp. 42-43)
Wise words from St. Augustine...thanks for that...
I said nothing about Christians in my post, only Creationists. There *is* a difference you know.
Then how do yeast cells turn non-aromatic compounds like sugars, air and water into aromatic compounds like Guanine? Must be a miracle!!
You really need to review your old biochemistry books...
/right-wing Darwinist
To which god are you referring? Yahweh? Allah? Vishnu? Ahura Mazda? Quetzalcoatl?
There are many gods worshipped, and each has his/her share of fanatical adherents who insist that their god is The One True God, that their way is The One True Way, and that anyone who disagrees is either ignorant, bigoted, or is possessed by their god's spiritual adversary.
I respect the inalienable right of everyone to their own religious belief, so long as they respect my right to have none.
You are aware that your repeated use of the word "infidel" makes you sound like a rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth Islamic mullah, right? "Death to America," "Kill All The Jews," and what not?
You dont even have to go to other religions to find vast differences of belief...heck, this whole evolution/Creationism squabble is just the tip of the iceberg, when it comes to many of the differing beliefs between just the various Christian religions...
Just one example...you have the Catholics saying that Mary remained a virgin for her entire life, and that she never bore any other children...and then you have most non-Catholics saying that the Catholics have it wrong, that Mary did have sex with Joseph after the birth of Jesus and that Jesus had brothers and sisters...both sides will present Scriptures to substantiate their claims...they will discuss this, dissect the Scriptures involved, will argue with one another and yet never come to a consensus...
And yet both sides claim with authority, that they have the only correct meaning, that should be taken from the Bible on various subjects, and they will all back up what they believe with Scriptures...
The religous forum on FR, is a fine example of this...every day, one can see them discuss and disagree completely with one another...sometimes it gets nasty and very heated, but most times it is quite interesting, and most of the posters try to maintain some civility with one another, even tho they may not agree with one another...
So this whole evolution/creation disagreement, is just one in a long list of subject areas, where different Christian religions, denominations, or just folks, disagree completely about what the Bible is really saying...
Maybe you should read books beyond Morrison and Boyd level. Say, Barry Trost's Comprehensive Organic Synthesis. Then it might dawn on you that the conditions necessary for hexane or cyclohexane aromatization to benzene are not necessary for the dehydrations [or other elimination reactions] which produce multiple bonds.
As an add on to my post #53 take note of some of the discussions going on, in the religion forum now, especially the one about the difference between a Catholic Bible and a Protestant Bible...its been going on for a few days now, and people are as oppositional with each other on this subject as they are concerning this evolution/creation discussion...
Some have even taken to throwing up pics of snakes, big ones, as a reference to how some different protestant sects engage in their religious services...which is really no different than protestants claiming that Catholics are nothing but 'cannibals', because they believe that the blood and wine are truly Christs blood and body...
So throwing around 'snakes' and 'cannibals' on the religious threads, makes some of the evolution/creation threads look actually quite calm...
Are you aware I was replying to a post? Or did you just want to blow off some steam? My, my you get so upset! But not knowing Truth, you should be!
Science has found no evidence of a global flood. Instead, there is a tremendous amount of evidence that no global flood occurred anywhere near the claimed time (ca. 4300 years ago).
Early geologists, who were trying to document the flood, gave up about 1830.
Not a cent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.