 not, needs to be double-checked. Anyway, the book made sense to me at the time as a student but now I see it claimed to face reality and in fact did nothing of the kind. The kind of compromise between the Bible and mainstream geology it proposes simply will not work. Follow the logic of the latter to its conclusion and it excludes biblical creation and catastrophism (though not theism). Follow the logic of the former to its conclusion and we find it insists our scientists’ construct of natural history is deeply and fatally flawed on several levels – levels Mr. Dankenbring dismissed from consideration with a wave of the hand.
Mr. Dankenbring somewhere wrote in his book that what many would call theistic evolution is “properly called development”. I am having trouble finding the reference and I may be thinking of something else. That is the problem with ENFP-preference cognition: “I read it in a book somewhere” is often as good as our memory gets, alas! But that statement in quotes fits the philosophy of the book: the idea that while God indeed created rather than work through alleged natural laws of evolution, there is still a progression of flora and fauna which certainly looks to secular people like “evolution” over long ages rather than special creation all at the same time.
Mr. D. writes some interesting and telling paragraphs at the end of his book. What he fails to mention in them is that there are good empirical and theoretical reasons for doubting the “long-ages” construct he wants to reconcile with the Bible. I applaud the young-creationists and others who do the scientific work required to cast those doubts, and to point out where evolutionists themselves express them if they can get past their own peers’ review. Where the young-creationists fail in their theology is precisely where they fail in their science. But not all of their theology is unsound. Doesn’t it follow then, if “the word of God is the foundation of knowledge”, that where their theology is sound – as in the miraculous and overwhelming nature of Noah’s Flood – their science should also be taken seriously even as it’s double-checked for logical and methodological consistency? “Thinking in the service of Feeling” (Carl Jung) can distort one’s reasoning even if one starts from the right premise, although right premises certainly help evade most such problems. But we ought to give young-creationists a tad more credit than we often do. They are no more and no less wrong than anyone else as a general rule.
Yes, I probably am a bit older than you. AC Pasadena 1959-1966/7.
Began listening to the WT in 1956.
The drop in faith goes back further into the 1960’s. That is, where one could see it starting. And, I believe I can pinpoint specific instances where it began. But, that’s for another day maybe.
As to your comment that their ideas on pre-Adamic man, etc. were changing? One thing about Ambassador, and specifically Dr. Hoeh, was that he was always looking for better ways to explain the Bible, and history. Often he would come into class and change what he told us the day before, because he had read new information he did not have before. Yet, church doctrine did not change. A college is a place to look into alternatives to see if any come closer to the truth, or clarifies what is truth. Based on your explanation I do not believe this was anything that diminished faith. To me, and my experience other things did. Things which began before your time there, and which began to grow during your time and beyond.
As to Mr. Hermann’s changing thots I cannot speak to those since I don’t know from your explanation what he was actually saying. Even so, I see no present evidence that much he taught has actually been changed in the writings of those who came after his time.
As to Bill D’s book, and publications. He published his books without permission of Mr. Armstrong, the College, etc. And, they were not publications presenting the “sanctioned” teaching of the church, college or Mr. Armstrong. And were part of the stepping stones of his going his particular way. I knew Bill quite well. In fact, I knew all the men you mentioned.
As to faith changing, perhaps comments could be given on a post about the subject if Mr. Smith feels it is a subject to be pursued.
You could try following this up on my blog and relieve poor Mr. Smith:
Be warned though, I have much to do in the Personal Correspondence Dept. for my part and may not be able to give much of an answer, or allow protracted discussion. My apologies in advance. (Also, like Mr. Smith, I reserve the right to use, edit or deny posts as I see fit and proper. There are biblical precedents which one must follow.)
The thing that angers me most about debates like this one is not the ignorant evolutionist (i.e. Bill Nye – although even his voice churns my stomach), but it is the fact that the gentleman representing the Christian view is not “well spoken” or “quick on his feet”. You need to have someone (like a Bob Dutko for example) who can brilliantly and powerfully shut down an atheist and evolutionist rather quickly, thus, making someone like Mr. Nye look rather foolish (which he is). I hope Mr. Smith will allow me the privilege of posting this short (sample) clip of Mr. Dutko’s 2 part CD presentation titled “Top Ten Proofs for a Young Earth”. Since I already have his complete “Top 10 Proofs” CD series, I can tell you that this particular topic takes close to 2 hours to fully explore all 10 proofs that the Earth is young. Here is the sample:
Thanks, Steven. In my own opinion, I don’t find Mr. Dutko’s presentations as convincing as you do, and I know of plenty of atheists who would not be shut down at all by many of his observations. Some of his points are presented better than others, while in other cases he seems pressed to come up with a clean “Ten” to the point that comes up with “filler” points that are terribly weak. And “proving” a young earth takes more than anomolous examples and circumstances, since the same could be done for “earths” of various ages: young, old, and “middle aged.” As for Ken Ham, I may not agree with all of his conclusions, but I did find him generally well-spoken and fairly quick on his feet. Still, I have no problem with the link, and perhaps some will find Mr. Dutko’s material helpful in some way. Thanks, again.
John Wheeler: Thanks for the invite to your site. Since your time will be limited for responses think I’ll just post some material on my own site about the earlier history.
FINally….
Happy Sabbath!😉
Well, as I blogged about on my own blog, I came to a slightly different conclusion in that I thought Ken Ham (ever so slightly) edged out Bill Nye in the debate. In summary, Bill Nye bills himself as an open-minded scientist, yet he contradicts that with the notion that one cannot be a scientist or, worse, that American will somehow fall behind in science simply because of a belief in a young earth creation. He even debated that there is no difference, as Ken Ham kept emphasizing, between historical science and observable science.
Ken Ham is a known quantity. What he teaches is pretty well known, and that was one of the reasons I even balked at watching the debate. However, Bill Nye did not, IMO, sufficiently deflect Ham’s assetions, and his obvious stubborness in insisting that evolution is a knowable fact and disregarding it is essentially disregarding science itself, limited his effectiveness.
Still, I did not grade either of them with an ‘A’.
Howdy, marchhare, and I apologize for the delay in comment moderation! All day Sunday I was out of the office on very, very important business (Star Wars marathon) and yesterday I just didn’t get to a lot of computer work.
I don’t see much to dispute in what you write, and I see that as just as valid a conclusion. Neither really topped the other, and both sides made points the other did not touch or refute sufficiently. I still think that Nye made the better impression, but that’s clearly a subjective call, and I could see someone else calling it differently. And I agree: No one got an “A” that evening.🙂
Thanks for stopping by!
Both Bill Nye and Ken Ham have the same “problem.” They are both very committed to their POV. So much so they cannot hear or see outside that POV. Rom. 1:22, 28 explains some, or all of this.
What I saw in both men during the debate were two intelligent men with “closed minds” on the topics they should have at least considered. This “closed mindedness” is a problem, sad to say, that we all have to some degree or another. It can stop the learning of valuable additional information, or even new information within the ecclesia.
I’ve come to believe even more strongly that “perfect love casts out fear.” Those men resist the other, why? Fear they may lose something, may be wrong, etc. and have to “give up” their standing in their own group.
I’ve met many fearful people in and out of the ecclesia. Yet, if we stand in the faith, what is for us to fear, even from one another,