MattS

My comment conflating YEC and ID was deliberate and measured and is based on much thought and involvement.

I first came across ID in 1996 when it was clearly old earth and very different from YEC. However since 2000/2001 they have been moving closer together. ( I was at the ID conference in Wisconsin in 2000 and met msot of the leading IDers) This can be seen in the website of the Discovery Institute, blogs on Uncommon Descent which are often by YECs especailly the British D Tyler and A Sibley. Truthinscience which is trying to force the teaching of YEC in our schools does so under the cloak of ID and is endorsed by the Discovery Institute and TIS use DI CDs. In the USA more and more IDers are YEC eg Nelson, Menuge Reynolds et al

In the UK ID and YEC are used intercahngeably by YECs , ID when they want to "get into " schools etc and YEC when they are with the faithful

All this has been documented by many , google Forrest on the NCSE website or read the Chapter in my book Evangelcials and Science (Greenwood 2008)

I am aware that some IDers are not YEC but increasingly they are alligned with YECs and we should not be fooled by either the politicking of both IDers and YECs or the apperent academic respectability of ID.

We need to see both YEC and ID as scientifically vacuous

I have written a few articles on the subject, some of which are easily available .

Much is covered by Christians in science, Faraday Inst and www.assa3.org

I had an article on forum in Feb 2009 to wish Charlie happy birthday

Michael

Last November I had a fascinating involvement with Muslim thought as I went to the DArwin Now conference organised by the British Council at Alexandria. Half the delegates were Muslim  scientists and there were also many egyptian students.

Discussions were centred round Darwin and there were diverse opinions. A minority had no problems and one scholar suggested that Muslims needed a John Polkinghorne in theri midst. Some were rather creationist and in Turkey some school kids are taught Adam was 15 metres tall to be bigger than dinosaurs. Some discussions got heated and there is a problem in science teaching in many muslim countries

However the thing which impressed me was the openenss and friendliness of all there. I had many good conversations with a variety of Muslim Scientists and came away with a greater respect and understanding.

For Nersen Paul

Which false doctrines do you mean?

Do you also include extreme evangelical views like insisting on dating your conversion, odd views of eschatology, looking for the spirit of Jezebel ,  Creationism and other way out views. Each of these cause a lot of damage to the church

A little suggestion for the Lord Bishop of Liverpool. He could cycle into church house rather than drive as did Stuart Blanch:)

Phil

I dont see the point of your discussion. It is impossible to do any science without naturalism and that has been how science has always worked even if the word was not used.

The problem comes is when naturalism as a method i.e methodological naturalism is metamorphosed into a philosophical naturalism which claims that what is not described scientifically does not exist. Philosophical naturalism is BY DEFINITION atheist and will deny God and any miracles. MN is a tool and as such cannot talk of God or miracles and thus makes no comment about their possibility except that almost every process on this planet can be described by science. BUT only almost every.

There is an immense amount of junk on the ether about naturalism emanating from either the ID or YEC camps. That can be ignored as its failings have been demonstrated many times

Phil

If I had not read several of Andrews' books and heard him give a lecture I might have agreed. He is , of course, a creationist, and in his books he gives serious misrepresentation of geological science as he did in the lecture I heard, when I challenged him on his misrepresentation. He refused to correct his misrepresentation which was very serious indeed. I cannot respect someone like that.

It has been interesting seeing the comments here and several have missed the point including Pete Broadbent.

A serious problem is that a number of clergy are badly let down by the hierachy and hence a union is needed as a safety net. That alone should make all consider what is happening in the church.

A professional association for the clergy would be excellent but until that is in place a union has an important role to play. It also has to be said that only the most intransigent problems dealt with by the Union get publicity. Those which are clear-cut mean that the diocese has to back off and at that point the matter is officially closed (though it may be held against the clergyperson for years)

Paul

What type of false teaching do you mean? There is not only the extreme liberal who evacuates the Gospel of all meaning but also the extreme evangelical who cuts himself (no women presbyters!) and his church off for his little semi-anglican set-up and teaches all kinds of things which are off-beam eg creationism and loves to do Rowan bashing as part of his public ministry.

To go back to +Pete's post , he needs to realise that the pastoral care of clergy is often appalling from the hieirachy and thus a union is essential. No amount of pleading from +pete or the Bishop of Ripon is convincing

Today in The Times is a long article by Anne Atkins on the lot of clergy. It is a sharp article and continues fro the recent report on clergy bullying from UNITE.

I am sure what she writes chimes in with the experiences of many clergy (I could say one or two things).

Several things

Is there a major problem?

Does the Blacklist exists (up to 3000 nmaes) and how can we find out if we are on it?

All in all a disturbing report and too close to the bone.

P.S. I am relieved to be in UNITE

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6976975.ece

My wife and I have just spent over two weeks in the Pacific Northwest and had an excellent holiday, ending with a conference.

On the sundays we went to church in Olympia and the cathedral in Portland. Valued our worship and found the TEC in much better heart than many say

Perhaps we should stop listening to VOL etc

I have never been a charismatic but I have always found I have agreed with Watson's balanced approach to the gifts of the spirit

I will never forget seeing Watson attacked by a rabid Charismanic in Durham in 1973 for not insisting on tongues as essential. It was an embarrassing scene and DW basically replied in silence.

Matters are not helped by a cessassionist argument which I only see as specail pleading and has no basis.

Part of the split is reflected in the demise of DEFs and a willingness of evangelicasl to accept some diversity rather than run off into groups like Reform Word and Spirit etc.

It doers seem that the more conservative evangelical is uppermost today