> >>Many ICR people distinguish between Biblical creationism - the attempt
> to understand origins et al using both scientific *and* Biblical
> resources - and scientific creationism - the attempt to understand
> origins et al using only scientific resources. The terms are thus not
> intended as synonymous, and the Biblical is not so much contrasted with
> 'unbiblical' as with 'not appealing to Biblical resources'.>>
> That's a good point, I probably should have made it along the way to
> opening this issue.
In principle this is OK but then you should note that the set of
"scientific creationists" so defined is probably empty.
> "BC" and "SC" are both terms Morris has used.
> I really grieve when I see fellow Christians hurling spears at one another
> -- particularly in "public" And labels are a big part of that process.
> If you call me an "Xist," where "X" is a label I don't accept, for whatever
> reason, then I perceive us as being "at war." If I call myself a "Yist,"
> where "Y" is a label you cannot accept, for whatever reason, you see me as
> arrogant. But if you and I, with opposing positions, no matter how serious,
> want to discuss our issues in good faith, it seems to me we ought to begin
> by creating labels for each of us that both of us can accept.
> Henry's article in Acts & Facts appears to offer a chance to do just that.
OK, people ought to be able to labels themselves & their beliefs
- within reason. But they should not expect those who disagree with
them to accept terminology which concedes the argument. To use "literal
creationism" as a description for the type of belief held by ICR is - as
several posters have noted - inaccurate. It is even more inaccurate
when it implies that those who disagree with the group do not take the
letter of Scripture seriously or that they do not believe in creation.