I very much agree with your thesis that we should expose creation science
on its own grounds. Scientific arguments are unlikely to get very far with
people who view science and scientists as the enemy. Many of us in
`Bible-believing' churches are not prone to search the scriptures as the
Bereans did to see whether or not what we have been taught is true, but
rather tend to assume that what we have heard from a pulpit or in a class
or have seen in a picture in a Bible story book is biblical. Most
evangelicals had never heard of some of the major claims of creation
science before 1961, when Whitcomb and Morris published their book, and
now it seems that in many circles adherence to these assertions is viewed
as a test of orthodoxy. That would imply a low view of the doctrinal
soundness of just about every believer before that date.
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395
On Sat, 27 Feb 1999 PHSEELY@aol.com wrote:
> I have been thinking about Blaine's experience with the "conservatives" and
> their YEC ideas; and thought I should share my own approach to them, an
> approach which usually does not change their minds, but makes them less
> willing to be vocal.
> My approach is to expose creation science on its own grounds. That is, the
> YEC's claim to be following a straight forward interpretation of the Bible;
> but, in fact, at crucial points they take the Bible out of context. My past
> papers in the Westminster Journal show that they are reading a global earth
> into Gen 1-11, are rejecting the historical-grammatical meaning of "firmament"
> as a rock-solid sky, and are reversing the Bible's description of water above
> the firmament into a canopy of water below the firmament.