Re: Error in Article & what should be done.

Arthur V. Chadwick (
Thu, 12 Feb 1998 09:57:10 -0800

At 08:18 AM 2/12/98 -0500, Steven Schimmrich wrote:
> Amen to that. I feel exactly the same way about YEC claims. If people
>"These were totally miraculous events" then I would not have a problem
with it.
>It's when they claim that there is scientific support for their ideas that I
>think they become fair game for investigation and, as usually happens,

O.K. so you want to allow only one or the other. That seems to me to be
pretty arbitrary. After all, the God on earth who healed the leper and
raised the dead had to eat food, and relieve himself and drink water just
like the rest of us. Where do you get this philosophy of simplifying
everything to either all one or all the other? It certainly is not from
scripture, and not from human experience, so it must be a tenet of
rationalism that has slipped into this discussion. There probably were
some events in the history of this world that cannot be explained within
our limited framework, and there are a number of things that can be
tentatively defined in rational terms. Is that a flaw of the system? Is
someone who believes that God does intervene in human history suddenly
prohibited from being rational, or proceeding as a scientist in areas where
he or she believes noninterventionist processes were occurring? I do not
see the connection, unless you wish to define a class of people as irrelevant.