I went to the international society of Christian Apologetics conference at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary earlier today. I wasn’t able to go to some of the earlier sessions because I had class, however I went to a couple. These are my observations about the ones I attended
Harvey Solganic
Naturalism, Creationism, and Intelligent Design: Worldviews in Conflict, Comprehension, Coherence, Correlation, or Crisis?
This was similar to what I have been told a “real” paper session is, consisting of a person basically reading their paper. On a side note, I was unsure of which building to go to and so I went in and asked someone, he had someone else who was going to that building lead me there and on the way, Dr. Solganic walked a part of the way there with us, and so we got to talk for a little bit. Back to the paper, it was basically how there is in general three different views of the world: that proposed by the evolutionist, that proposed by the intelligent design proponent and the creationist one. Basically he in this paper was desiring to explore a way to bracket off our presuppositions in order to come to a better understanding of what is the truth, trying to put away our biases enough so we can see what other views are to get a body of truth which can then be interpreted later on. It was an interesting idea, and the only reason I feel that I eventually understood it is because it is similar to the ideas I have had, trying to see what God says in the Bible, putting away my biases and what I want to see, as well as what popular opinion says in order to get what God says.
The next session was by Steven A. Austin of the Institute for Creation Research. Now this is the man that wrote the book on Mount St. Helens that I used initially for my research paper that is due on tuesday. He talked about a lot of different topics but mainly focused on the Grand Canyon and how a global flood explains that better than the uniformitarianism approach. I really enjoyed what he had to say. He looked a lot like Bro. Chad. (some of the notes from this presentation and others I might be able to put up on here later on). I was able to talk to him quickly after his presentation, he seemed like a really good guy. I learned about the 5 pieces of the story of Grand Canyon (Sedimentation, tectonics, erosion, volcanoes, exponential decline). Also it was interesting to learn concerning the “little grand canyon” around Mt. St. Helens. Basically in March or May 19, 1982 a mudflow slid down the volcano, cut through a debris dam and went into the rock, cutting back and forming something that looks very similar to the Grand Canyon by Las Vegas in only a short amount of time
Next was a presentation called “How Creation was Hijacked by Science” in which Norman Geisler basically discussed how modern science was brought about by creationists and how the very thing which these scientists established is now attempting to remove creation from the science. It was a very information packed powerpoint and there was a list sent around and we could write our names down and we would have the powerpoint sent to us. I ended up with both lists and I didn’t know who to give it to, so I believe the person I gave it to was a man working with ICR, I guess I could have given it to Mr. Geisler himself and it was kinda awkward when he was looking for it and the people sitting behind me basically knew I was the last one to have it. I told the guy I gave it to though and I think he got it all okay. I learned that there are basically two kinds of science. One that deals with first causes or origins and the other dealing with current processes. Also on some things that early Creationists got wrong (hopefully more is coming soon)
The last session I attended was by Henry Morris III called “The Naive Literalist” in which he basically addressed the question or debate about if a literal view of creation makes Christianity a sort of laughingstock or taken less seriously, basically if a literal view of the Bible with regard to Creation Science is good or bad. I found that Dr. Morris was a very personable man and knew what he was talking about. It basically came down to the idea that man does not choose how to interpret scripture but it is God who does. One sort of funny thing I learned was that in graduate school and to get a PhD you basically find out and research what someone else said about what someone else. I also learned that really, much of science and research is based on majority rules, something I had suspected for a while now. He talked about how the Bible doesn’t have too much good to say about the human intellect as normal processes exclude God.
So today, I learned quite a bit about Creation and Evolution, perhaps the main thing I came out with is that there is a difference between those who believe in Biblical Creation and those who are for Intelligent Design. I learned a lot about what William Dembski believes simply by Dr. Morris and other’s lectures. It was kinda sad from what I heard that Mr. Dembski is trying to reconcile. He basically believes that there is a problem with understanding evil (and I can understand that position) but he goes on to say that basically God allowed for death etc. to occur before the fall of man because He knew that they would sin and that God just sort of allowed stuff to happen before that tipping point. (basically allowing an explanation for death in this world that theistic evolution desires, even though the Bible states that death came after the fall). It is a bit sad that a professor from Southwestern Seminary would be kindly rebuked or intreated for his views by those outside of the college. The school is not what I heard it once was.