>Now when I read some of the ASA statements, there is nothing to rule
>out YEC as something acceptable to ASA. Yet the posts I see indicate
>a totally different story.<
For me, the distinction is in the general practice of YEC versus an
absolute statement ruling it out. The scientific evidence supports
an old earth and extensive biological evolution. Most popular YEC
deals with this problem through denial, false claims, and similarly
unacceptable ways. However, if someone recognizes this, yet holds a
YEC view in spite of this (e.g., by considering scientific evidence
unimportant or by hoping that new discoveries will overturn the work
of the past few centuries), they are not making false claims about
science. For example, someone on the list a few years ago suggested
that the universe was created a few thousand years ago, but with the
full appearance of a 15 billion year history of natural processes in
order to better enable us to understand natural processes. This view
is internally consistent and compatible with all available scientific
evidence. To me, it seems unnecessarily complex; presumably he found
an old-earth interpretation !
of Genesis 1 unnecessarily complex.
Thus, I would distinguish between YEC and the current mainstream of
creation science. Most YEC are influenced by it, but that does not
rule out the existence of someone who will accept the possible
validity of other views and is open to correction.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
Droitgate Spa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 23 2002 - 16:44:13 EDT