RE: [asa] Former YEC's on ASA and Henry Morris - WAS Denver RATE Conference

>Lastly on the comparative success of a combatative or softly-softly
approach on YEC and ID, it has to be said that neither have worked as we are
dealing with ideology rather than intellectual exploration from faith.

And this is truth for militant atheism as well.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Roberts [mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk]
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 5:14 PM
To: John Walley; 'Iain Strachan'
Cc: 'PvM'; 'George Murphy'; asa@calvin.edu; 'Steven M Smith'
Subject: Re: [asa] Former YEC's on ASA and Henry Morris - WAS Denver RATE
Conference

I was given this info on ol' Henry when I was writing the entry on him for
the IVP dictionary of evangelicals. I wrote back to the person -
well-respected in the ASA- and he said I should not include it in my entry!
He named the person and the place where it was said with an approx date.
However I can say no more.

If we just consider Morris from 1961 after the publication of TGF he
received much criticism for over 40 years both fro his gross
misrepresentations in that book and elsewhere. In my copies of Morris's
books I often mark his geological inexactitudes (my other sciences are too
weak to go public on my criticisms). These have been repeated in book after
book despite constant correction by Christian and non-Christian alike. This
refusal to be corrected is clearly wilful and supports the view he expressed
to the fellow from the ASA that he lied for the Kingdom.

John's story is confirmatory.

Sadly when you read most YEC books you find the same thing, eg Parker,
Snelling, Gish, and many Brit and OZ YECs. Any correction is ignored or put
down to not having the Spirit or some other holy-sounding objection. And if
the critic is not a Christian or only a liberal Christian then they are also
wrong.

Of course, everyone of us makes mistakes, big or little in what we say or
write. When a supposed error is brought to light how we deal with it is very
important. That is where friendly critics are so valuable and these do not
have to be of the same faith perspective as ourselves. If I need to check
something on the history of radiometric age dating I will ask an atheist
and more recent stuff an agnostic FRS(and Wiens!) On the history of geology
I get much help from the History of Geology Group of the Geol Soc of London,
which may be pungent. Many will do the same in their own field but the
contrast of this and how YEC and ID operate is that it is public debate,
which includes rough and tumble, but is a public concern for truth -
something which we can share with atheists and agnostics. Much of YEC and ID
avoid the public sharing of ideas preferring only to declaim in public.

Lastly on the comparative success of a combatative or softly-softly approach
on YEC and ID, it has to be said that neither have worked as we are dealing
with ideology rather than intellectual exploration from faith.

Michael

----- Original Message -----

From: John Walley <mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com>

To: 'Iain <mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com> Strachan'

Cc: 'PvM' <mailto:pvm.pandas@gmail.com> ; 'Michael Roberts'
<mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> ; 'George Murphy'
<mailto:gmurphy@raex.com> ; asa@calvin.edu ; 'Steven M Smith'
<mailto:smsmith@usgs.gov>

Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 2:50 PM

Subject: RE: [asa] Former YEC's on ASA and Henry Morris - WAS Denver RATE
Conference

I actually have the email as my friend has saved it all these years and
forwarded me a copy. I will see if I can dig it out and get his permission
to forward it to the list.

My point was though I agree that many people in this debate on both sides
are dishonest and even deceitful, but I choose instead to focus on finding
the truth rather than reading into people's motives about what they say and
do. I think we need to be aware of it but it doesn't seem productive to me
to take it any further than that.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Iain Strachan [mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 9:37 AM
To: John Walley
Cc: PvM; Michael Roberts; George Murphy; asa@calvin.edu; Steven M Smith
Subject: Re: [asa] Former YEC's on ASA and Henry Morris - WAS Denver RATE
Conference

Hi, John,

You wrote:

On Henry Morris, I have a friend with a PhD in Nuclear Physics that got into
an email exchange with Morris a long time ago on some topic where Morris was
way over his head and which my friend cornered him and got him to admit in
an email something to the effect alleged below, that the details don't
matter if you are defending God.

That is certainly pretty dishonest, but I think that "brush details under
the carpet" is a different spin from "it's OK to lie for the Kingdom". It's
a response, certainly of willful ignorance - rather like Lisa Simpson going
"La la la I can't hear you!". The question is, what is the best way to
approach a la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you type response? Is it right to accuse
them of listening to liars straight off, or would a more softly-softly
approach be more likely to be fruitful? Along the lines of - "let's reason
about this. The detail you want to brush aside is rather important - it
overturns the whole argument. The onus is on you to show why this detail is
unimportant". Is that not likely to be more fruitful than "How much longer
are you going to listen to liars and fools?".

It's a pity that the Morris quote you mention is only available as a
recollection of a private email - if I were to report that third hand to a
Creationist, as coming from a list of Christians who were mostly TE, then
I'm sure I'd get the response "well he would say that, wouldn't he?". If it
were on the web somewhere, as a reputable, referenced source, it would be a
good thing to challenge YECs concerning honesty. In a recent post to Peter
Loose on this list, I spent some time, as you know pointing out areas where
I felt Creation Scientists were less than honest.

As regards to atheists indulging in wishful thinking, I couldn't agree more!
It seems to me that there is a philosophical commitment to "many-worlds
interpretations" in many atheist scientists that goes beyond science. How
convenient to be able to appeal to a stupid creator (the multiverse giving
rise to "anthropic coincidences"), rather than acknowledging the possibility
of an omnipotent God. The true scientist will appeal to neither as an
explanatory mechanism, and continue to search for better theories to explain
things.

Iain
 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Sep 30 17:27:15 2007