On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 16:25:02 -0600, Glenn Morton wrote:
GM>I have been following the discussion of what YECs want to be called only
>loosely. So I don't know if anyone has cited this yet. I just got my Act &
>Facts today and saw this from Henry Morris, speaking of theistic evolutionists,
>
>"Then they go on patronizingly to deplore the supposed anti-intellectualism
>of what they call 'young-earth creationism' (this is their term; we prefer
>'Biblical creationism' or 'literal creationism'" Henry Morris, "Old Earth
>Creationism, Back to Genesis No. 100, April 1997, p. a
>
>I too find this odd that he would say that this is "their" term. Henry and
>others have used the term a lot over the years.
Maybe this is a sign that the ICR is having internal divisions over
the doctrine of a "young-earth"? Gish has stated on at least two
occasions (the last fairly recently) that belief in a "young-earth"
is not essential:
"Professor Burke mentions the age of the earth as evidence for
evolution. While it is true that evolution demands an immensity of
time, and thus any evidence for a young age for the earth or the
cosmos would be fatal to evolution theory, evidence that the earth is
old would neither prove evolution nor threaten creation. A vast age
of the earth is a necessary - but not sufficient - evidence for
evolution; and the fact that such a supposition is no threat to
creation is self-evident from the fact that many special creationists
do believe that the earth is old." (Gish D.T., in Burke D.C. Ed.,
"Creation and Evolution: When Christians Disagree", Inter-Varsity
Press: Leicester, 1985, p193-194)
"The subject of the age of the earth and the cosmos is certainly a
very important subject and is frequently discussed in books and
articles by creation scientists. There are two reasons why that
subject will not be dealt with here. The first, and primary reason,
is that the scope of this book is limited to the how of origins.
This focuses attention on the core of the creation/evolution
question. Secondly, significant numbers of both conservative
theologians and creation scientists hold to an old age of the earth
and long time intervals between the many acts of creation. Thus
creationists take both sides of the controversy over the age of the
earth and the universe while asserting that there is a mass of
powerful, positive convincing evidence for special creation." (Gish
D.T., "Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics", 1993, p260)
Indeed, even Henry Morris seems to suggest that belief in a
"young-earth" is not essential:
"As a matter of fact, the creation model does not, in its basic
form, require a short time scale. It merely assumes a period of
special creation sometime in the past, without necessarily stating
when that was. On the other hand, the evolution model does require
a long time scale. The creation model is thus free to consider the
evidence on its own merits, whereas the evolution model is forced to
reject all evidence that favors a short time scale." (Morris H.M.,
"Scientific Creationism", 1985, p136)
"The question of the date of creation is separate and distinct from
the question of the fact of creation....The fact is, however, that
the question of the age of the earth and the universe, while an
important question in its own right, is quite independent of the
question of creation or evolution, at least as far as the facts of
science are concerned...On the other hand, the concept of evolution
does suggest an old earth. Creationism is free to consider all
evidences regarding the earth's age, whether old or
young...Consequently, even though scientific creationism does not
necessarily specify a recent creation, the question of the date of
creation, like the question of catastrophism, is an important
related issue." (Morris H.M. & Parker G.E., "What is Creation
Science?", 1987, pp253-254)
Likewise Wysong states that creation is not dependent upon time and
that some creationists now believe in the exact time scale advocated
by the evolutionary proposition:
"Most evolutionists hold quite closely to the notion of an infinite,
or at least a vastly old universe. To most evolutionists, huge time
and evolution are inseparable. Evolution is dependent upon time.
On the other hand, creation, a miracle, is not at all dependent upon
time. However, many creationists have veered considerably from the
traditional creationstic view of time noted above. They have
changed their position because of intense pressure from evolutionary
scientific arguments for vast age. Some creationists now believe in
the exact time scale advocated by the evolutionary proposition.
Some think in terms of hundreds of thousands, or millions, but not
billions. others suggest that the universe is almost infinitely old
but that life is relatively recent." (Wysong R.L., "The
Creation-Evolution Controversy", 1976, p144)
It is my expectation that the ICR will eventually split over the
"young-earth" question. There is just too much for them to defend,
which hampers their anti-evolution thrust. I have it on good
authority from a former YEC insider (not Glenn) that this is
possible (if not probable) when Henry Morris passes from the scene.
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------