> Oliver,
>
> I said...
>
> > The doctrines that were cooked up to
> > "defend against Darwinian heresy" have
> > done more harm than good since then.
>
> You asked...
>
> > Which doctrines do you think of? And
> > what harm have they done? I cannot
> > think of any.
>
> Young Earth Creationism and the Global Flood are the two I'm thinking
> of.
I think by the first term you mean the believe in a young earth and not
the creationist part. If this is right, I for myself don't see the
doctrine of a young earth as an argument against Darwinism because
Darwinism is much more dangerous as a believe in an old earth because it
denies God's supernatural creation. Arguing from the bible one can use the
short history oof the earth, but I think this only covers the more basic
differences.
But I use the Biblical account against the uniformitarian view of earth
history which is less dangerous to Biblical doctrine.
> To support them, several bizarre theories have been advanced:
> appearance of age, flood geology, and moon dust to name a few. YEC and
> GF are not the only doctrinal inferrences that can be drawn from
> scripture, but the theories that have been used to support these
> doctrines have been presented in such a way as to make those doctrines
> the only ones that will be officially accepted.
I can't see any possibility escaping this doctrines when reading the
Bible.
And if 'appearance of age' and 'Flood geology' are rightly understood I
don't think there is anything bizarre.
> My own experience is enough to demonstrate the sacredness of these
> doctrines. I cannot talk about these things among most of my Christian
> friends because they feel that I've compromised to the evolutionists.
> If I say anything, I am barraged with the arguments about moon dust and
> changes in the speed of light. I can easily refute every argument that
> they make, but not to the end of convincing them--they are only
> silenced.
This only confoirms that the position for a young earth rests on the
Bible.
> This leads to resentment and division. Unity is more
> important than doctrinal precision, so I leave off talking about these
> things. (Even my friends who will talk on this subject instinctively
> know where and among whom we must not say anything--the old Gallileo
> syndrome.)
It seems to me that scientific 'results' are more important to you than
doctrinal precision.
Best wishes
Oliver