From: RFaussette@aol.com
Date: Tue Apr 01 2003 - 11:58:35 EST
In a message dated 4/1/03 10:04:44 AM Eastern Standard Time,
burgythree@hotmail.com writes:
> To call the YEC movement "defeated" cannot, IMHO, be defended. To call their
> arguments defeated, and that may be what you mean, might be defended. Even
> then, I'd have difficulty with the statement. If that were really true, one
> would think they would have slunk away by now, rather than prospering.
>
>
Before finding ASA, I spent a brief time posting at the ISCID (or is it
ICSID) web site. They don't tolerate evolutionary posts very well and their
"scientists" post the worst gobbledygook for rational thought I've ever seen.
I didn't see you quote george saying "movement." I thought he said arguments.
The arguments are defeated. The movement is strong. The reason the movment
cannot be defeated in the popular arena - is that very few people understand
the evolutionary interpretation of genesis which puts cosmogony and cosmology
in the back seat and anthropology and psychology in the front seat.
The creation stories are from an agricultural civilization and probably
appropriated, not worth the trouble people are wasting on them, especially
not making those arguments the pivot on which Biblical interpretation
depends. The authors of genesis were pastoralists. It is likely that the
parts of genesis dealing with human nature are the real kernels of
pastoralist truth. Jewish scholars specifically write of the "science of
nature" and the "heavenly chariot (merkaba)" hidden in genesis.
Ken Ham's primary concern is not geology or biology. He cares about human
morality. The story of human morality has to do with the people in genesis,
not the origin of the universe.
rich
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Apr 01 2003 - 12:07:38 EST