« Angels Misquoted | Main | A homeschool family... »

Creationism, science, and the gender debates

Does anyone else see similarities between the gender debates and the YEC/evolution debates? Note this from Young Earth Creationism Makes Life Difficult for Everyone at Christianity Today:

Creationist geologists are now numerous enough to fill a large meeting room and well educated enough to know that in rejecting the geologic timeline they are also essentially taking on the central tenets of the field. Any “evidence” presented at the conference pointing to a young earth would be no more convincing than voodoo or alchemy to mainstream geologists, who have used various radiometric-dating methods to establish that the earth is 4.6 billion years old.

The scholars defending the traditional views of Scripture interpretation similarly seem to refute “new” evidence as faulty, ipso facto. Whether it all actually is faulty or not I’m not in a position to say. (Then why bother to say anything, since I haven’t any scholarly authority? Well, if Luther [and Calvin] were right, and priesthood resides in every believer, then enough can be gleaned by any believer from an as-honest-as-possible translation of the Bible that that person may gain sufficient knowledge of spiritual truth to properly guide his or her life.)

Would the scholars agree with this? Not, I suppose, if they consider themselves elite:

Like any group of elites, they [the creation scientists with Ph.D.s] were snobs about their superior degrees. During lunch breaks or car rides, they traded jokes about the “vulgar creationists” and the “uneducated masses,” and, in their least Christian moments, the “idiots on the Web.” One leader of a creationist institute complained about all the cranks who call on the phone claiming to have seen dinosaurs or to have had a vision of Noah’s ark.

Yes, there are cranks out there. But how do we know there aren’t cranks in there too? Isn’t it entirely possible that someone who writes a long, detailed, overwhelmingly erudite paper and is possessed of an IQ off the charts as well as years and years of study could still be...wrong?

Yes, I think it’s possible. So then, whom do we trust? Where does authority really lie?

Let me tell you a little story. When I was a pre-teen, I was taken to concerts to hear supposedly good music. Oftentimes it didn't actually sound good to me, but I figured I just wasn’t “getting it”; after all, I was just a kid, what did I know? As I got older, though, occasionally I would hear something that did sound good -- even great...amazing...magical. These experiences were my inspiration. I would listen as closely as I could, trying to absorb, trying to figure things out, sometimes copying what I heard on my instrument.

It wasn’t until I’d gained the wisdom of a few more years of growth, experience, and music study, though, that I realized that this study enabled me to learn why things sounded good, or didn’t. I could’ve recognized what was good, or wasn’t, when I was very young, but I couldn’t have told you why.

The reason for this recognition is that I was born with a musical gift. I’m no Mozart, but I have enough musical ability to have become a professional musician and private teacher, with many years of performing and teaching experience under my belt. Together with my God-given ability, these qualify me as somewhat of an authority. I have this authority by nature of my gifting and mastery. Throughout my life, I've sought to learn from those whom I’ve recognized as the real masters, welcoming the authority of their worthy example and mentorship by virtue of their gifting and mastery. Not only was their authority proven by what they were capable of producing, but by what receipt of their instruction produced in me: better musicianship. Better realization of the goals toward which I strove.

As to elites and cranks: those trying to prove a presupposition rather than starting from the raw materials, whether elitist or crank, are trouble no matter how you look at it.

Christian evolutionists are the ones really bugged by this [YEC] movement. “Geology at Wheaton is presented and practiced much the same way as at secular universities,” Stephen Moshier, the department chair, says. However, young earth creationists have a lot of influence. ...“It can get so frustrating,” he said. “Many of us at Christian colleges really grieve at what a problem this young-earth creationism makes for the Christian witness. It’s almost like they’re adding another thing you have to believe to become a Christian. It’s like saying, You have to believe the world is flat to be a Christian, and that’s absolutely unreasonable.”

So, then...how do we separate the wheat from the chaff in the gender debates? Stay tuned.

(Note: I can’t promise that installments in this series on gender issues will be regular...I’m posting as I can get the myriad of ideas swirling about in my head properly researched, organized, and written about. Thanks for understanding. :-) ).

Comments

There is a man at my church, maybe 15 years younger than me, who teaches a Sunday School class on YEC. He's been doing it for several years now. He's very well-read and convinced that he has both the science and the theology right. I think he's wrong about his YEC conclusions, but there's no way to have a conversation with him about it. He has staked out his position, and worse, he treats his YEC dogmas as if they were requirements for orthodox Christianity. They're on the same level as the resurrection. He wouldn't say that, but he communicates it.

It's easy to make certain beliefs that we hold to strongly requirements, and I guess that could be because we bring these beliefs with us into the faith, and then bolster them with our study of Scripture. Good things to think about, Bonnie.

Posted by: Charlie at December 21, 2007 8:05 PM

YEC is one of those topics Christians can debate over rigorously without making it a central tenet to the faith.

A good comparison is as to alcohol. We can debate over its use among Christian bros and sisters. However, we cannot make its use or abstinence an essential.

Posted by: Letitia at December 26, 2007 3:21 AM

Really good post and points, Bonnie. Looking forward to more of your ideas on the gender debate- it is quite tough to wade through the many presumptions on the topic. Hope we can all have some conversations and back and forth discussion on this. I really think it is a pivotal issues to get some progress on. it impacts many of our other issues in the Church.

Posted by: ilona at December 26, 2007 1:29 PM

sorry- my slow connection and system made me do it. Multiple postings have been par for the course of late.
So sorry, folks!

Posted by: ilona at December 26, 2007 1:46 PM

Dear Charlie:
Do you believe that the Atomic Bomb exist and also the H Bomb?
The Periodic Table of Elements and their contingent isotopes are the 'guts' of these bombs. Isotopes have a standard rate of decay-timed to the atomic number- like the atomic clock. If the decay rate varied to random thoughts then these bombs would not exist and also much of medical science.
Sincerely,
J R Dittbrenner

Posted by: j R Dittbrenner at December 30, 2007 10:33 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.

About

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.