Evidence for God from Science

Gman, call their office and tell them you are interested in becoming a certified science apologist. Their number is 626-335-1480.

Let me get this straight. Are you saying anyone who adheres to YEC, is manipulating information.

jlay wrote:Let me get this straight. Are you saying anyone who adheres to YEC, is manipulating information.

Seems that some people have pointed out that in order to support a YEC position (from a science perspective rather than a biblical one) requires either manipulation of evidence, or acceptance of worse interpretations of evidence over better interpretations. So for example it's not enough to first note that the grand canyon could have formed slowly or swiftly, second recognise that there is evidence for both positions, and third conclude that it is reasonable to adhere to either position; weight and quality of evidence matters, and there is such a thing as a bad interpretation of the evidence.

TC, I undestand. i am just trying to get to the bottom of somthing.

jlay wrote:Let me get this straight. Are you saying anyone who adheres to YEC, is manipulating information.

Of course not....I have never said anything remotely like that.

I'm saying that many YEC camps in the past and still some today have had a bad history of manipulating data. Given that history and some of the present dogmatic approach, they present an unnecessary stumbling block to coming to CHrist.

ageofknowledge wrote:Gman, call their office and tell them you are interested in becoming a certified science apologist. Their number is 626-335-1480.

Age, I gave them a call today and they gave me all the info. Apparently you can even use this course as a college credit. Sweet...

Thanks so much for bringing this to my attention. I'm going to go for it in January...

More info is here if anyone else wants to join..

http://www.reasons.org/learning/reasons-institute

You will enjoy it. I did. They even assign you a mentor.

Indeed Zoegirl. Way of the Masters then takes these faulty conclusions and forces them on the newly converted. Needless to say, many cannot accept such foolishness and just walk away saying to themselves "what was I thinking? Fred Flinstone never existed."

I find their approach reckless and dangerous in the way they push YEC onto newly saved converts. If they stuck with evangelism and apologetically dealt with creationism in the macro as but one of many components in a sound doctrinal instructional program now that would be responsible.

I have been using WoTM materials for the last 18 months and I want to speak in their defence. I have a few points.

1. The central method used by WoTM is tackling a person's conscience by presenting them with the Law (lying, stealing, adultery etc), showing people that they are under God's wrath and then explaining the Gospel to people once they realise their need to be forgiven. Apologetics comes into it, but it is secondary. In one of their programmes, Kirk Cameron says that Evolution/creation is not usually an issue when talking to people in the streets. I would concur with this.

2. The main emphasis of their ministry is evangelism, not teaching new converts. What is your evidence that they push YEC onto saved converts? I have not come across anything so far that suggests this. In dealing with evolution, their main approach is to debunk the theory, rather than push one view of creation.

3. I have found their approach extremely helpful. I can honestly say that it has revolutionised my witnessing like nothing has for 25 years. Maybe that's why I'm defensive of their ministry! See my blog http://www.notanevangelist.blogspot.com/.

4. I was busy distributing these books a month or so ago. Ray's introduction is not dogmatic about Old Earth or Young Earth (last time I checked). It is more of a critique of Darwin's theory. The vigorous response of atheists (some advocated book burnings) to the distribution is sufficient for me to know that it was a good idea. The main challenge I believe (certainly in England) is to show people that the theory of Evolution is seriously flawed, even though they have been taught it as fact.

5. It is unhelpful to descend to the level of his detractors by calling him Bananaman. He's an evangelist. He's on our side and I actually think that what he has done is very ingenious. I am thrilled to think that thousands of students have been challenged over the myth of evolution and have been presented with a clear Gospel message into the bargain. So should we all be.

6. Ray Comfort himself is not dogmatic about the age of the earth. Look at the following link:

http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/11/26/i ... y-comfort/

I am told that I believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, when I have said many times I don't have any idea about the age of the earth. Those who believe it's 4.5 billion years old have to have faith in radioisotope dating techniques. I don't have that sort of faith.

7. I have found from my experience so far that most people who like and use the WoTM method of evangelism take a non-charismatic, Calvinistic view of Christianity. But that's not exclusive. I am not a Calvinist and am a charismatic. No problems. WoTM is a para-church organisation and is less dogmatic than many people who use their methods.

Blessings

McM