Re: A simple answer.

Glenn R. Morton (grmorton@waymark.net)
Fri, 23 Oct 1998 06:17:31 -0500

At 10:57 PM 10/22/98 -0600, Michael R Bush wrote:
>Greeting Glenn,
> I am new to the group, but familiar with discussing evolution. In
>response to your questions below, I have a few small general answers.
>
>"I would also be interested in the response of any of the young-earthers
>on
>this list to this very simple, morality issue. Is it moral to teach that
>which is known to be false?"
>
> Of course not.
>
>"Is it MORAL to teach that which we know is false? Is it MORAL to stand
>by
>silently while your fellow Christians teach false things?"
>
> Absolutely not! I believe that God does not allow any room for false
>teachings.

Welcome to the list. I don't know if you are a young-earther or not, but
if you are, thank you so much for your willingness to answer this question.
You are the second, after Kurt.

>However, how much better it would be if the great creation
>scientists could do their research, lay the foundation for the next
>generation of YEC's, and provide good science examples to the established
>community, rather than fighting other creationists over poor science
>practices.

I would suggest that the last generation was supposed to lay the foundation
for this one. And the one before that was supposed to lay a foundation for
the last generation. But what has happened in creationsim is that the same
thing is taught in each generation with no change, no developement and
always behind the pace of new discovery. One generation can not lay the
foundation for the next unless they change what they, themselves, were
taught. And I will tell you, as a former very active YEC myself, I know the
guys out there today and they are not dealing with the issues in any
different manner than those of the last generation.

>
> Finally, I noticed that two disturbing trends present in an
>embarrassingly large amount of creationist rhetoric follow the same
>patterns as the examples you posted. Firstly, the authors attempt to
>destroy an existing theory or belief rather than posing a better theory.
>Humans generally require an explanation for everything they think about.
>Is there ever a case where, once an explanation has been given, somebody
>else successfully proves the first explanation is false, without posing a
>better one? Perhaps it has happened, but what is the likelihood of the
>first explanation being thrown out without replacing it?

I think the liklihood is zip. About 20 years ago, I was gripping to my
wife about what Henry Morris and other creationists advanced as the
explanation for geology. I was telling her how unworkable their solutions
were. She nailed me to the wall with a single question: Do you have
anything better?

All I could do was tuck my tail between my legs and flee back to my home
office. I didn't have anything. That is why I began looking for solutions
-- I couldn't answer that question.

> Christians should never hesitate to affirm biblical morality, even when
>it is uncomfortable.

And sometimes it is very, very uncomfortable. But thank you so much for
your willingness to stand for honesty.
glenn

Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm