Re: LC

John W. Burgeson (
Thu, 27 Mar 1997 10:06:38 -0500

GM wrote, in part::

"In principle this is OK but then you should note that the set of
"scientific creationists" so defined is probably empty. "

Sorry, George. That statement simply does not make any sense. My
correspondent (or I) must have been unclear.

GM also wrote, in part: "...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. "

I thought that was exactly what I was saying, George. Again, my apologies
for being less than clear about that point.

GM concluded by saying, "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."

The particular issue under discussion is whether (or not) the term "LC"
does just that. A couple people, three if I include you, think that it
does; I don't see it that way, but I have no stake in the word used. My
challenge to you -- and the others, is to find a better term. Your
alternative is to continue using a term (YEC) which your fellow Christians
at ICR find somewhat offensive.

I don't like that last alternative, myself, so I'll continue to look for
another one and stay away from "YEC" whenever possible.

He has risen! (I know -- I'm jumping the gun here < G >)