On Sun, 21 Apr 1996 19:12:59 -0500 you wrote to Chuck Warman:
CW>I have one clarification of my own to add: My "genetic fallacy"
and/or
>"priesthood" remarks were not directed specifically at Tom or anyone else
>on this reflector. It's when a Carl Sagan or a Michael Dawkins directly
>deny the existence or relevance of God, *in the popular literature* and
>invoking their scientific credentials to do so, that the "Priesthood"
>appellation is appropriate. Where I find many TE's culpable is that you
>don't hold these guys' feet to the fire, in the popular literature, for
>making unwarranted metaphysical claims.
[...]
SC>But let me turn the point around. Recently, while driving back to
Madison
>from Chicago, I heard Henry Morris on a Chicago Christian radio station
>"explain" the metaphysics behind evolution science. He traced
>"evolutionary" models from Darwin, to the Greeks and then to the Babylonians
>(it was interesting to note that he excluded the vitalism of Augustine and
>other Christian thinkers). Morris said that according to Babylonian
>mythology, everything emanated from water and is akin to an evolutionary
>model of origins. Then he made the astounding leap to explain how Satan was
>the originator of this model. He suggested that since angels were created
>on the first day (he cited Psalm 104 for this), Satan was present in the
>world when it was covered with water. Satan, according to Morris, raised
>his head and looked around and seeing only God and water, and not being
>willing to acknowledge his origin in God, attributed it to the water. Thus,
>we have the origins of Satan's role in the current model of evolution.
>
>Phew, and evolutionists are criticised for their stories!
If Morris presented this as fact, rather than identifying it as
speculation
then he should be "criticised" too.
SC>To re-phrase Chuck's question, how come creationists don't hold
these guys
>feet to the fire for making unwarranted metaphysical claims? Or, more
>specifically for Chuck, if you are indeed concerned about unwarranted
>claims, why do you seem to focus solely on those who make metaphysical leaps
>from science and not on those who use faulty science to support their
>metaphysical claims?
I don't know quite know how I could hold Morris or anyone else's "feet
to the fire". Is this a tax accountant's phrase out of the IRS
manual? :-) But Morris *is* criticised extensively by creationist
writers like Hugh Ross and Alan Hayward. Phil Johnson makes it quite
clear he is not a defender of Creation-Science in DOT (p14).
I am not a YEC and certainly reject Morris' more extreme metaphysical
claims, which doesn't mean I reject outright everything he writes. I
find some of his arguments against Darwinism cogent.
God bless.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------