Re: Moral effects of Darwinism

Glenn R. Morton (
Wed, 30 Sep 1998 17:38:57 -0500

At 08:22 AM 9/30/98 -0700, Arthur V. Chadwick wrote:
>This is a very real problem, as you suggest. But it does not explain why
>nobody has even challenged what Dawkins said or did. I think that even if
>the group that interviewed dawkins may not have identified at the outset
>their philosophical persuasions, he did not answer their question, and
>engaged in an obvious coverup to protect himself. Doesnt anybody care
>about that?

Since I was the first one to believe Dawkins I will explain why I did.
There are two issues.

1. The video was visibly doctored. That causes a credibility loss and
makes one be suspicious of the producer.

2. As you yourself have noted many times, YECs are not really working on
the geologic problems that confront anyone that wants to believe in a
global flood. And as you are quite aware, given your experience with
precambrian pollen (and I might add the story you privately told me about
ski tracks), YECs do not deal well with data when they are confronted with
problems. They deny the data and ignore what is plainly observable. THIS

So what is the result of this? When they do tell the truth about
something, people are less willing to believe what they say. And people are
willing to give the benefit of the doubt to those they think they have seen
handling the data correctly, which is usually NOT the YEC. I know that I am
that human also and I initially didn't believe Gillian. But I did finally
come around to believe that Gillian's version appears more likely to be
correct. But it is only a probability, not a certainty.

This is blunt, but this is frankly the case. YECs need desperately to
cease and desist the tendency they have to totally ignore data that
contradicts their view point. If they want people to believe them they need
to behave believably.

Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information