Re: Coconino - Evidence for a flood?

Glenn Morton (
Fri, 20 Feb 1998 06:03:39 -0600

At 01:27 AM 2/20/98 -0500, John Neal wrote:
Steve Schimmerich wrote:
>"I get suspicious when I see someone trying to make a radical
reinterpretation >of something in science in such a way that it would
apparently support their >religious beliefs"
>Why? Most of "science" is interpreted through an anti-God predisposition in
the >first place. You call that objective?

I want to jump in here.
This captures why I am so discouraged and why I have been bothered by some
of what has been said here recently. I am a Christian. I don't interpret
geology through an anti-God bias. I never have. Yet, when I was a
young-earth creationist and new in the geosciences, I found out that what
the secular geologists were saying was factually true. What ICR et al were
saying about geology was false. So now when I try to speak what I know to
be the truth, christians generally don't believe me because they generally
feel as you do. They feel that I must be interpreting the science through
an anti-God perspective or that I disbelieve in miracles or that I am
throwing God out of the universe. In effect, my fellow Christains are always
saying that I am lying about the geologic data. And many of my fellow
christians would rather I worship somewhere else on Sunday because they
think I am not a Christian due to what I know to be true in geology. It is
no fun at all to have people who don't know your professional field or the
data in it to think you are anti-God when all you are doing is telling
people what you see.

While I can't talk for Steve, I have seen Steve express similar feelings in
the past. I know Steve does not interpret the world through an anti-God bias
either. He too is a Christian and loves the Lord.


Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man


Foundation, Fall and Flood