Letter to the Editor

Should We start With More Basic Misconceptions Than Wonderly Did?

From: PSCF 44 (December 1992): 281.

I heartly concur with the sentiments expressed in Daniel E. Wonderly's communication in the June 1992 issue of Perspectives concerning the need to warn Christian leaders about erronous "scientific creationist" stories. In addition, I see a need to make such people aware of the real evidence for creation.

However I am dubious about the likelihood of success for such an endeavor if we begin by attempting to expose a story about the origin of coal deposits, especially if we are trying to convince someone with little knowledge of science. Rather I believe that we should begin with the most basic and easily comprehensible topics and then, after the groundwork has been laid, move on the more special examples.

I am particularly concerned about the following common misconceptions:

1 - The idea that the total alteration of the earth's surface by the Flood is taught by or even consistent with the Scriptures;

2. The assumption that the short-day interpretation and other "scientific creationist" assertions were the unques- tioned beliefs of the early church;

3. The impression that the proponents of such views are en*dnent scientists with advanced training in the sub- jects they discuss;

4. The absolutely ludicrous suggestion that the pro- ponents of Big Bang cosmology have atheistic motivations, and

5. The accusation that people who accept the estimate of the earth's age indicated by science are sure to accept all theories in the area of science that have widespread popularity.

Some nontechnical discussion of these issues should be possible and, if understood, should serve as a basis for correcting many other common misconceptions.