VERiTAS
Tonight's topic at VERiTAS was Creationism, specifically, debunking the "religious myth" of evolution. The night was essentially a rebuttal of the recent "Evolution Sunday" event that was started by Butler's own Dr. Zimmerman, Dean of LAS. On "Evolution Sunday" in January, 617 churches participated in a declaration that Darwin evolution and religion can co-exist. Dr. Mortenson from Answers In Genesis spoke tonight to clarify that it's not "religion" that can't coexist with evolution, it's Christianity. Evolution and Biblical Christianity are, in fact, at war.That wasn't the only thing at war tonight. Talk about feeling effects of the presence of truth in hostility! It proved to be the most hotly debated and well-attended evening in VERiTAS history. Unfortunately, it was also the most disgusting, illogical and emotionally driven. Not from the speaker, who was admirable in his self-defense, but rather the mud-slinging participants. One Butler professor managed to raise completely unrelated slander and walked out in huff after insulting the speaker's academics and intelligence. Another attendee had the gall to address our speaker as being "a despicable sham for a human being." I was appalled and utterly embarrassed with the lack of respect from the dissenters and with the discussion's lack of control. I finally packed up the refreshments at 10:45 and went home, leaving Dr. Zimmerman and Dr. Mortenson at debate with a number of onlookers. I wonder how it ended...
--------------------------------------
On a lighter note, here are my silly questions from the discussion. No, I did not voice them at the meeting, although maybe I should have to break the mood...
1) What sort of serpent was Satan when he tempted Eve in the garden? If his belly crawling was a result of the fall's curse, then what was he before the fall? A dinosaur? A lizard?
2) Why wasn't Eve disturbed when this serpent spoke to her? Did animals talk before the fall? Do animals have the ability and intelligence to communicate verbally, but the fall has them tongue-tied?
3) What about Balaam's donkey? Does the fact that he spoke demonstrate that animals can talk, but in this instance, God allowed the effects of the fall to be momentarily suspended to work his purpose for Balaam?
--------------------------------------
As a side note, in spite of my "stand up for truth" drive and ministry, I am merely a weak female who doesn't understand male debates. I'm not strong enough to get involved and put an end to discussions like tonight, and deep down am uncomfortable with controversy. I cannot function without male leadership! But since I make the coffee and bring the goodies, they need me. :)
Labels: Veritas
4 Comments:
Great questions - I've wondered that too! I think the serpent must have been different from dinosaurs and lizards, because we still have lizards, and I do kind of think that the Biblical behemoth and leviathan sound like dinosaurs. I kind of picture the serpent as being like an extra large snake like the ones you hear about in rain forests, but with legs. Not legs in a ridiculous way, but in a dangerous way.
Interesting thought about animals talking, but would God have told us that was a consequence of the fall if it was? You're right about it being weird that Eve wasn't freaked out by the serpent talking though.
Adam did search for a companion among the animals... maybe he could talk about his loneliness with them. They were good, but not good enough? Disney always makes animals talking seem reasonable. :) Although I'll never understand why Goofy is "better" than Pluto. Maybe that's a racist statement disguised by dogs.
We have conversations about dinosaurs and talking animals all the time. It's hard to answer someone who is depending on your word being truth, especially when there's no clear answers. It is strange that there are some questions that will never be answered, answers we would love to know. Our answers usually are "if God wanted to he would" and "for some reason God didn't tell us". It's amazing how their little minds are already trying to wrap around the idea of God's control and sovereign plan.
I've noticed the discrepancies in animated shows how some animals talk, some don't and often wondered why.
Thanks for mentioning this event! It is really unfortunate when people cannot discuss things in a calm and respectful manner, although I suppose we all get upset about things that really matter to us (some of us more than others).
I have written a lengthy response to the event on my own blog. The address is http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/blog/
Here is an excerpt:
When it comes to the Bible, however, Mortenson made claims that are easily tested. He claimed that not only Genesis 1-3, but other passages such as the stories about the birth of Jesus, are historically factual narratives that may not use modern language, but which accurately describe things as they actually happened. He said that this is the plain sense of these stories, and that context showed this to be the case.
I would ask anyone genuinely interested in understanding the Bible to take a look at Matthew chapter 1. Matthew 1:17 says that "all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations" (RSV). The plain meaning seems beyond dispute: these are all the generations in question, and in each group there are fourteen. This is the plain meaning, and it is clearly false. On the one hand, one only has to count them in order to see that there are in fact two groups of 14 and one group of 13. On the other hand, one only has to look at the genealogies in Kings and Chronicles to see that in order to get 14 in one of the groupings he had to leave out some generations.
If Mortenson is correct that the Bible should be read as providing factual data when this is the plain meaning to a modern reader, then the Bible is false, unless one wishes to propose a special "Biblical mathematics" in which 14 sometimes means 13, as well as a special Biblical linguistics in which "all" sometimes means "some". There is, however, another solution. My own view is that the desire for historical, factual information, and the assumption that this is what will be provided because it is mose important, are modern perspectives these authors did not share. The number 14 is the numerical value of the name David in Hebrew, and that seems to me to explain why the author went to such lengths to emphasize this number - even to the length of making the text numerically and genealogically inaccurate! The point is about symbolism, and not history, nor is it about math. But the latter, to a modern reader, seems to be the plain meaning of the text.
I then go on to explain why I find a number of other points made by the speaker problematic from a Christian perspective.
Post a Comment
<< Home