From: Jan de Koning (jan@dekoning.ca)
Date: Mon Sep 22 2003 - 10:36:54 EDT
Is it possible to send all messages, discussions, replies regarding Young
Earth Creation (YEC) to a separate list (Question mark, which my computer
does not want to make when it receives certain messages. I this an omen,
question mark.) I have been reading about YEC fort many, many years now,
and for those wanting to read about it, there are many places, where one
can read about the rebuttals of YEC without cluttering up this list. This
is my personal observation, and I delete them all, but get stuck every now
and again on one.
Jan de Koning
t 11:46 PM 21/09/2003 -0500, Sarah Berel-Harrop wrote:
>Walter,
>
>I apologize if you found my comment abusive. That
>certainly is not my intent.
>
>The point I mean to make is that the YEC position as
>promoted by professional YEC'ers is simply inaccurate -
>this is an assertion I get the feeling you might not agree
>with but let it stand for a moment for the sake of getting
>onto the same page - and what's more there is a significant
>level of dishonesty involved in the literature. I mean their
>description of the science, not the theological issues.
>See for example,
>
><http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
>
>Science education in this country is so poor that most
>people are hardly capable to properly evaluate the claims
>made either by standard geology or evolutionary biology
>or by professional YEC'rs or OEC'rs ID'rs. That's too
>bad. If lay people want to accept the claims, and they
>are in fields or avocations where science is not involved,
>certainly there is not a problem. I already stated I felt
>such a person has no affirmative duty to investigate the
>claims. They trust whoever told them, and that's fair
>enough. It is my feeling from reading Glenn's and other's
>posts that you are making far too much of their use of
>the acronym YEC. I don't think they mean lay people,
>and you are objecting to their (our?) attitude toward these
>folks. I think they are talking about what I called
>professional YEC'rs. Do you understand the distinction
>and do you find it useful? Although you may still find the
>characterization of professional YEC'rs objectionable,
>if that's who we mean, it would inappropriate of you
>to state that we are disrepecting lay people when we
>say x, y, z about professional YEC'rs. If that's who
>we/they mean, it's time to restrict the discussion to
>professional YEC'rs, adding the caveat that you think
>most YEC's are not professional YEC'rs. ( And I
>agree that that is the case).
>
>I noted one unfortunate side effect, which is the fact of
>lay peoples' lack of understanding of or indifference to
>the methods and accuracy of professional YEC'rs tends
>to undermine science education because you've got
>folks who might have an effect but don't speak out about
>it and so there are fewer Christians criticizing the scientific
>errors. This also lends to the sort of persecution/seige
>mentality that makes Josh's church leaders think it's ok to
>equate evolution and atheism as a rhertorical strategy. That
>really is sad, but as long as you don't have political activity
>going on it only affects the people who already buy in
>to YEC.
>
>Going up to a higher level of activity. There are clergy as
>I noted who preach anti-evolution from their pulpits. Some
>of them specifically criticize from what purports to be a
>scientific basis. Some of them just call scientists Athena
>worshippers and idolators trying to set up a secular
>priesthood. These folks are not in theology anymore,
>and they should closely investigate the claims they
>are making. And the example I gave on the Athena
>thing is from a real sermon, here in Houston, and I
>find it truly objectionable. I disagree with you if you
>are stating that I should not be critical of these practices.
>I think these practices are wrong. If you are going
>to preach a sermon you need to do adequate research.
>If you are preaching a sermon that draws from a
>source like ICR or AIG you cannot have done adequate
>research because their material so strongly diverges
>from facts, as Michael Roberts earlier stated, they
>misrepresent mainstream science. Then they tear
>the misrepresentation down as implausible. Sorry
>if it offends you for me to say that.
>
>Finally you've got folks on school boards and being
>political active. Again, in my view they have an
>affirmative duty to investigate the scientific claims
>they are making. With very few exceptions when
>you dig deeper the claims are rotten. It was truly
>sad to me to see the things people were saying at
>the State Board of Education, flat-out untruths, but
>you would not know unless you checked or had
>prior knowledge of the subject matter.
>
>This is too long already but I strenuously object to
>your characterization of Dawkins as a prophet of
>evolution. Dawkins is one of the purveyors of so
>much misinformation about evolution it is not even
>funny. In my more cynical moments I suspect that's
>why people who should know better like the ID'rs
>spend so much time refuting his views. Someone with
>a decent biology background reading Dawkins probably
>mentally discounts the misstatements and fills in the
>omissions. Unfortunately he is very popular with lay
>people. I think I've quoted before a fellow "A lot of
>intelligent people who know very little about evolution
>like Dawkins".
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:wallyshoes@mindspring.com>Walter Hicks
>To: <mailto:sec@hal-pc.org>Sarah Berel-Harrop
>Cc: <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>asa@calvin.edu
>Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 9:53 PM
>Subject: Re: Questions to Allen Roy
>
>Let me be clear, Sarah.
>
>I mention my daughter specifically to personalize it. I really do resent
>generalizations like Glenn's. To demonize YECs is to lower yourself to the
>level they are portrayed to represent.
>
>I am not referring to my daughter when I mention people who basically
>believe in a Young Earth outlook. They seem to represent most (but not
>all) of the parishioners in my church -- and they do NOT have the hostile
>attitude that most on this list portray as the norm for a belief in a
>literal Bible. They were simply raised on the Bible and take those words
>at face value. Popular literature portrays science as opposed to
>Christianity, so what can you expect? Expect YECs to embrace evolution
>when the Prophet is Dawkins? Even with that, my views are respected.
>
>My church has a web site that lists various "resources". I have been
>working for some time to get ASA listed and it is nearly a "done deal". My
>hope is that they will see intelligent discussion that makes them feel
>like they are respected as Christians -- and not a lot of criticism that
>makes them feel that they are looked upon as bunch of illiterate fools.
>The material on the ASA site is generally good.
>
>It is the discussions on this list that belittle people. My hope is
>(should the site be listed) that nobody hears what I have been hearing. In
>fact, if I "had my druthers', Terry would can any posts of this nature. I
>would love to see only intelligent and POLITE discussion, rather that what
>has been posted lately.
>The Christian message is for all folk. If they happen to accept what some
>call a "mother goose" outlook and still know the Lord, then that it is
>acceptable in my eyes -- as long as they are more tolerant of scientists
>than scientists here are tolerant of them.
>
>When ASA members learn to present the truth of science in a fashion that
>conveys the points without being abusive and in a manner that can be
>readily understood, then progress might be made. What I see on this list
>does meet the mail. IMO
>
>Maybe I was wrong. Perhaps ASA is for scientists only and I erred in
>asking that it be listed on the Church's web site. If anyone thinks so,
>let me know and I can reverse the process.
>
>
>
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system
>(<http://www.grisoft.com>http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 09/01/2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 22 2003 - 10:32:58 EDT