From: Robert Schneider (rjschn39@bellsouth.net)
Date: Tue Sep 30 2003 - 20:51:27 EDT
Dick writes:
In The Genesis Record, Morris makes his point about the flood ordering the fossil sequence found in sedimentary rocks. He then says:
Man's perverse and depraved nature has somehow
distorted both into a system of evolution and uniformity.
I love it when YECs like Morris appeal to "man's perverse and depraved nature" to explain the source of such concepts as evolution and uniformity. Does it ever occur to them that the same argument could be turned against them? That it is their "perverse and depraved nature" that has led to their six-day 6000 year interpretation of Scripture and the "creation science" they have come up with to support it? I don't believe so; I'm merely pointing out that such a theological ad hominem argument is a double-edged sword.
I cannot in good conscience not put the words "creation science" in quotation marks. A long retired professor from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (back in the old days before the fundamentalists took it over and ruined it), once remarked about "scientific creationists" that "what they do is not science, and they don't understand creation."
Bob Schneider
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Fischer
To: ASA
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: Magnetic field energy loss
David wrote:
These illustrate a couple of peculiarities common in YEC (young-earth creationism) arguments. By admitting that reversals have occurred, Humphreys indirectly admits that other YEC advocates slander conventional geologists in denying the existence of reversals. Internal consistency is not a concern.
The second is an example of the unjustified uniformitarianism that is popular as a base for YEC arguments. Ironically, the hypocritical and illogical accusation of uniformitarianism as inherently atheistic is also popular among YEC advocates.
In The Genesis Record, Morris makes his point about the flood ordering the fossil sequence found in sedimentary rocks. He then says:
Man's perverse and depraved nature has somehow
distorted both into a system of evolution and uniformity.
"Uniformity" can be defined as a projected continuity. It is the assumption that the rates and processes we see today are the same as in the past. This is simply the most conservative stance you could take. The alternative is to assume that something (who knows what?) caused the rates or processes to change. Since we would not know whether the rates or processes changed up or down, the "no change" assumption is as middle-of-the-road as you can get.
The precautions with taking a uniformitarian approach are that you must have a considerable number of established data points, and that you not try to extrapolate too far. The important thing to remember, though, is that what makes uniformity inherently good or bad, from a young earth creationist's point of view, is directly dependent on who uses it. If they use it - it's good; if evolutionists use it - it's bad!
Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 30 2003 - 20:56:10 EDT