Re: statement on creationism?

George Murphy (""
Wed, 17 Nov 1999 20:01:45 -0500

Dick Fischer wrote:
> Paul Arveson wrote:
> >I agree with Ted that I think we need only a brief statement to convey the
> >main point: that many of the outspoken "creationists" don't speak for a lot
> >of the
> >evangelical scientists in this country on what we believe about creation
> >or evolution. We could go further and offer some reasons why we think
> >the teachings of these outspoken creationists is theologically and
> >scientifically suspect, and why we think it is not necessarily biblical, and
> >even goes against some of the Bible's teachings, including the ones Wendee
> >mentioned.
> We may not all agree on what is dead right, but certainly we can speak with
> authority on what is dead wrong. I think it is long past time that the ASA
> put out a press release and state our opposition to YEC. Then guys like
> Dobson can come to us and ask us what we think. Of course, we all think
> differently.
> But opposition to YEC needs to come from the Christian camp. Coming from
> Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott, et. al., it carries no
> weight among Christians. Let's go on record. If not us, then who? If not
> now, then when?

A bit overstated. "If not us, then who?" The vast majority of Lutheran, Roman,
Anglican, Presbyterian - & other - theologians, for a start. & if there's anything
lacking in this regard it's that they regard a "young earth" position as being as dead
as the humoral theory of disease & not even worth time speaking against. If
Evangelicals would have more contact with (which is not to say, total agreement with)
the main current of Christian theology then YEC could be seen for what it is - a
theological fossil.

George L. Murphy