Re: An approach to Creation Science

Moorad Alexanian (
Mon, 01 Mar 1999 09:06:24 -0500

Dear Dick,

I view the Bible precisely the same way I view good, experimental data in
scientific experiments. Both have to be taken literally. The disagreement
lies in the theory that one devices in order to weave all the data under one
umbrella. Everybody reads the Bible literally especially those who claim it
to be nonsensical.

Take care,


-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Fischer <>
To: <>
Date: Sunday, February 28, 1999 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: An approach to Creation Science

>Paul Seely wrote:
>>My approach is to expose creation science on its own grounds. That is,
>>YEC's claim to be following a straight forward interpretation of the
>>but, in fact, at crucial points they take the Bible out of context.
>Let me follow Paul with what I just posted on a YEC vs. OEC vs. TE
>Andrew wrote:
>>Yet, the scientists that do not hold to evolutionary dogma as ardently as
>>Dawkins, very rarely criticise him - and never in the popular media.
>>do other scientists criticise the misrepresentation of the media in regard
>>to the certainty of evolution.
>>The ironic thing is that Dawkins is employed by Cambridge to further the
>>public understanding of science. It seems that all he is doing is
>>their "misunderstanding".
>Here I agree. But the problem, as I see it, is that we Christians have
>lost all credibility. Essentially, we have abandoned the playing field,
>and if God-defying, smooth-talking evolutionists fill the void, then we get
>what we deserve. Who with scientific training would swallow an ark full of
>dinosaurs, or a fossil sequence organized by flood waters, or no death
>among the Trilobites until Adam tries a bite? Those of us who take our
>Bibles seriously and literally get splattered with the same mud that's
>intended for you guys who think scientists get their degrees out of Cracker
>Jack boxes, and say so.
>As a member of the American Scientific Affiliation, I get invited to attend
>Bible and science conferences held all over the globe. Almost without
>exception, the Christian speakers who have credentials in science come from
>the liberal camp of Christian thought. Talk about taking Genesis
>"literally," and they think you are off your rocker. As a fundamentalist
>Christian, I get blasted by my liberal Christian brothers who like to
>explain how Genesis was intended, not as history, but as allegory, or as a
>mixture of fable and fancy, or it is simply Jewish tradition taken from the
>Sumerians, or it was intended as a polemic against false gods, or it is
>merely poetry, etc.
>And why can't they accept a literal Genesis? Because "literal" has become
>embedded in creation-science. By wrapping a literal interpretation with
>anti-scientism you have caused those who are Christians, and respect the
>findings of science, to reject a literal interpretation. And you bring
>about rejection of the Bible altogether among the rest of the
>scientifically-educated including Richard Dawkins. Since your science is
>off the wall, they think your Bible is the source, and so they reject the
>gospel of Jesus Christ coming from the same camp.
>Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution -
>"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."