I also have to say that the comments on the Van Till portion - which I felt
to be evenhanded and at least attentive to the science in all of this
(having said that, I'm not a believer in "fully gifted creation" - were
bordering on the vindictive).
-jml
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Rusbult <rusbult@vms2.macc.wisc.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 1999 11:30 AM
Subject: responses to "scientifically humble" YEC
>
> In the 1999 book "Three Views on Creation and Evolution," Paul Nelson
> and John Mark Reynolds write a chapter on young-earth creationism, in
> which they say, "Recent creationists should humbly agree that their
> view is, at the moment, implausible on purely scientific grounds."
>
> What have been responses to this, by YECs and by others?
> As with my request for ID critiques, web-pages and ASA archives
> would be especially useful -- or at least immediately useful. :<)
>
>
> Personally, I'm impressed. Their humility inspired me to revise
> two parts of my overviews, mainly my description of "harmonization",
> which now reads:
> "YECs begin with a firm commitment to young-earth theology based on
> their interpretation of the Bible, and then adjust their science as
> necessary, but this does not produce satisfactory science. Or a YEC
> might recognize the scientific deficiencies, and decide to accept these
> temporarily (hoping that with further development the YEC-science will
> improve and become more satisfactory) in order to achieve the perceived
> theological benefits of a young-earth view."
> The first sentence is classical YEC (by Henry Morris,...); the second
> sentence was recently added to describe the views of Paul and John Mark.
>
> Craig Rusbult
>
>
>