|
Ross theory won’t impact science
In ‘The benefits of putting biblical creation to the test’ (June), Hugh Ross argues that Christians should respond to evolutionary theory
not with “evolution bashing” but with competing, testable models of our own.
It’s surprisingly difficult to find, on Ross’ website (reasons.org), a straightforward statement of his competing theory. But
he does reject the view that humans have evolved from other forms of life.
Our evolutionary history is as obvious as our wisdom teeth, our tail-bone and
our appendix. Evolutionary theory is one of the most exciting developments in
intellectual history, but Ross and others would have us ignore it all, at the
cost of believing in a bungler God who designed us rather poorly.
Once we accept that we do in fact have to come to terms with evolution, it will
seem less hard to do so, since we won’t have a stake in pretending the obstacles are insurmountable. Once people stop
telling us we have to choose between evolution and Christianity, I think we’ll find a way to accept both and muddle through, as we always do.
People like Ross insist on a way of reading scripture that makes it incompatible
with evolution, and tell us there are intellectually respectable ways to resist
evolutionary theory.
They make it harder for the rest of us to come to terms with evolution by
fostering the impression that rejection of evolution is a mark of Christian
identity, and that such a rejection is possible. In this they are the
evangelical counterparts to Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet, and their
relationship to the New Atheists is symbiotic.
People like Hugh Ross will never make an impact on the scientific world. They
will never affect any actual debates about science.
But they can fool other Christians into thinking such debates do or should
exist, and can thereby damage the intellectual lives of Christians, and make us
objects of ridicule.
And our rejection of evolutionary theory has made us an object of ridicule. In this case, we have earned the ridicule; and
put a stumbling block in the path of thinking people.
Please let’s stop trying to convince people that embracing Christianity means embracing
ignorance.
Brendan Ritchie, Boston, MA
Muslim faith putting us to shame
The Toronto Stock Exchange now publishes a Sharia Index, which lists companies
that comply with Islamic law. It excludes companies involved with alcohol,
tobacco, financial services and pork-related products.
As a Christian, I am filled with admiration. But why is there not a similar,
Christian index? Do we even think Christianity should shape investment
decisions? Muslims are putting us to shame. Their religion means something, it
shapes how they live.
Sadly, we interpret Christianity so that it leaves untouched most of what we do
each day. Dorothy Sayers wrote: “How can anyone remain interested in a religion which seems to have no concern
with nine-tenths of his life?” Is that why Islam is gaining converts?
Nick Loenen, Richmond
Continue article >>
|
Christ crucified is all we need know
Regarding Walter Rachinski’s letter, ‘The true meaning of the cross’ (June):
It becomes apparent that the true meaning will always be hard for some people to
define.
While that may be due to a greater or lesser understanding of scripture and
theology by some people, I think the more obvious reason for disparate concepts
will always be couched in personal experience.
We do not all experience the gospel the same way, as history has made apparent.
Calvinism, Arminianism, post- and pre-millennialism, dispensationalism, creation
science, intelligent design, traditional church or Seventh Day Adventism: the
list of ‘isms’ that can be supported, and that can find their opposite in scripture, is
seemingly endless.
No Christian I have ever read or talked to would ever deny the profound
importance of the cross, or the centrality of Christ in salvation.
But from the extremes of the hellfire and brimstone dogma of some evangelicals
to the universalism of some more modern theologies, one thing remains the same
in all that I have encountered.
Jesus Christ’s life, death and resurrection are pivotal in bridging the gap between humanity
and God. How it’s done, whether it is universal or not, is irrelevant to me – and for that, I’m sure to be called on the carpet.
God, in my humble opinion, had very little recourse to demonstrate his love for
his creation – other than to walk among us, suffer and die as we do every day.
Whether or not his death was an atonement, or just the logical end of any mortal
man who rebelled against the powers that existed, I cannot say for sure.
I do believe his resurrection is of more significance to me, because I know
death awaits me. I need the promise of his eternal life to sustain me, and I
need his love to give me purpose and show how I may minister to those mentioned
in the Beatitudes.
I can honestly say, with Paul, that all I know is Christ crucified – and that is enough for me.
I will spend the rest of my life trying to unravel the deep mystery of that
event and all its ramifications, and will try to pass my hope in Christ on to
others with my feeble understanding.
We will always argue theological minutiae, and accuse each other of heresy on
the one hand and dogmatic narrow mindedness on the other.
I prefer to look up the hill where the cross stands and remember the words of
Jesus when he said: “If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me.”
Jon Ochsendorf, Surrey
July 2009
|
Ross theory won't impact
Jesus stated, " But at the beginning of creation. God made them, male and female. Mark 10:6. Jesus ought to know, apparently He was there.
Sincerely
Muslim faith putting us to shame
Christians are not under law but Grace, not to be treated lightly. This index smacks of legalism though. We are not to advise people as to correct behavior according to our limited lights
I would suggest Nick Loenen spend a year or two trying to live freely as a Christian in a muslim country ( Iran comes to mind)
Perhaps he finds it admirable for education to be forbidden to women, or to have them (women) beaten publicly if they speak out against their husband. Wasn't it just recently that the highest court in Iran declared it was the right for a married man to rape his wife, regardless wheather she wanted sex or not.
Sorry, Nick. You're looking to the wrong source for inspiration. Next time, may I suggest looking for Christ for inspiration.
Dale K.
Ritchie needs a reality check.
He writes: “It’s surprisingly difficult to find, on Ross’ website (reasons.org), a straightforward statement of his competing theory. But he [Ross] does reject the view that humans have evolved from other forms of life.” Hello! Rejecting evolution in the context of an overtly Christian site about reasons-to-believe is equivalent to expressing belief in the “theory” of special creation. Sometimes in communication context is everything Brendan.
Brendan also writes: “Our evolutionary history is as obvious as our wisdom teeth, our tail-bone and our appendix.” I would like to add the useless tonsils - that we have since discovered do have a use - as well as the “junk DNA” (90+ % of the total DNA) - that now is being discovered as probably very useful as the relatively new science of epigenetics turns current genetic theory on its head. (see also Thomas S. Kuhn’s book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.”)
I began my honors science degree with an open mind, having recently become a Christ follower. After the first year, a combination of Zoology, Botany, Microbiology, Organic Chemistry, Genetics and Statistics I was dumbfounded that anyone could even believe in evolutionary theory. The latter two subjects alone make it so improbable when one considers that over 99% of mutations are deleterious. Interpret that with statistics!
When, in the first class, the Zoology professor began by asking if anyone was not convinced of the theory (dogma) of evolution, I raised my hand – the only one in the auditorium of some 400 students!
In high school the teacher taught us that like forces repel, and in the same breathe told us that electrons circle a nucleus of protons (Note: plural) and neutrons. No one batted an eye. Yet he was gratified when I timidly asked him after class what kept the nucleus from blowing apart.
As Brendan so nicely points out, evolutionary theory is simply ACCEPTED by students today – and herein lies the problem. Where are the honestly inquisitive minds that science depends on? Where are people like the Roman Catholic Christian Galileo who questioned the geocentric view of the solar system against the prevailing dogma. Science doesn’t need people who jump on the prevailing bandwagon and “accept” that they have to come to terms with what is placed before them.
Hence, I will have to strongly disagree with Ritchie’s statement that “People like Hugh Ross will never make an impact on the scientific world. They will never affect any actual debates about science.” Rather than “damage the intellectual lives of Christians” as Brendan asserts, they foster the honestly inquisitive spirit that is at the heart of true science.
Gary Desterke, Maple Ridge, BC
[Honors BSc (Environmental Biology) @ University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario
BA (Linguistics and Humanities) @ McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario
MSC (Biblical Studies) @ Regent College, Vancouver, BC]
Cherryl:
The New Testament does not portray Jesus as omniscient - consider his prayer in Gethsemane.
Gary:
1. Theory. No - Ross means to be presenting some kind of new scientific theory - no doubt some variety of special creation, as you say, but that doesn't say very much. The details matter.
2. Vestigiality. I am aware that some so-called vestigial organs are thought not to be entirely without utility - including the appendix, for example, and the tonsils, as you say. But that doesn't really mean that they do what they were originally designed for, though it may help explain why they've stuck around at all. In any case it seems to me peculiar to insist that say leg-bones in whales *must* do *something* when evolutionary theory accounts for their presence so neatly anyways.
3. Mutations. But of course most mutations are deleterious. It's only necessary that *some* mutations are beneficial, and therefore selected for. I'm sorry that this will seem insulting, but that point should be obvious if you actually have any understanding of evolutionary theory.
4. Inquisitiveness. It's true that pretty much no one in the scientific world questions evolution. But people debate all sorts of aspects of evolutionary theory very vigorously! The fact just is that there's no good reason to call into question the general framework.
A truly inquisitive spirit is not being fostered by evolution deniers. The denial is just driving people away from Christianity.