RE: Why?/Re: Answersingenesis

From: Gregory P. Kerr (
Date: Tue Apr 03 2001 - 12:58:45 EDT

  • Next message: Freeman, Louise Margaret: "RE: Engaging the power of Internet links"

    Todd et al.,

    Do you not see that the comments of the non-YEC views are themselves

    Again I quote you, "There is a standing joke among many atheists in online
    discussion groups
    that Henry Morris and Duane Gish are covert members of the worldwide
    atheist conspiracy (WAC), his efforts with YEC being very successful in
    efforts to discredit Christianity by atheists antagonistic to religion.
    *The Screwtape Letters* in real life."

    This posting does not distinguish whether the demonic character you ascribe
    to these gentlemen is evident from their YEC view or their purported
    exclusivity. But that is immaterial. They reveal your own exclusivity and

    Again, how about some science discussion...

    For example, can anyone point me to an evolutionary explanation for the
    development of complementary mutations in members of interacting species?
     By complementary, I mean a mutation in one species that results in the
    production of a molecule that to be effective (in terms of enhancing
    fitness) must be met with a mutation in another species that produces a
    corresponding receptor. Is chance the only explanation?


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Todd S. Greene []
    Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 12:32 PM
    Subject: Re: Why?/Re: Answersingenesis

    Hi, Greg.

    I appreciate your comments, and I think I see what you are referring to.
    What I observe is non-YECs considering the *divisive attitude* itself
    (which is a typical, but not inherent, feature of the YEC approach) as
    being what is suspect. I thought I was being clear about this
    distinction in my previous comments. I thought Moorad, for example, was
    very explicit in his remarks, that he believed it was the divisive
    attitude (which I typically refer to as the "exclusivist" attitude)
    itself that deserved condemnation, not the mere adherence to a belief in
    young earth creationism.

    Thus, you have to distinguish between the condemning of the exclusivist
    attitude, on the one hand, from the mere espousal of young earth
    creationism, on the other. Why don't you ask each of these people that
    you have quoted from, and explicitly ask them if they are (1) willing
    to consider a Christian's faith "suspect" for believing the YEC
    doctrine, and (2) willing to condemn the divisiveness that many YECs
    promote. Again, I wager that what you will find is that non-YECs are
    referring to the latter, not the former.

    Of course, there is always the question, "Are YECs justified in being
    divisive against those Christians who disagree with YEC?" And this you
    have not discussed.

    Incidentally, yes, I read your entire post.

    Todd S. Greene

    ###### Gregory P. Kerr, 4/3/01 11:29 AM ######

    You write:

    "Young earth creationists (very many, while I will acknowledge that it
    is not all of them) have clearly made this an issue which divides the
    good Christians from the bad Christians. Since this is the true
    situation, there is something clearly wrong with turning around and
    saying, as you are apparently doing, that people should not express
    criticism of this "exclusivist" (divisive) approach that so many YECs
    have taken. Let's be forthrightly honest about the situation."


    "...But non-YECs have not and do not
    claim that a person's belief in young earth creationism puts their
    salvation in danger, or makes their faith "suspect" or
    "compromising." Of course, if you think my assessment is incorrect,
    please show me the discussion I haven't been following which shows

    Not only have you not been following this discussion, you must not have
    finished reading my posting. I have shown that non-YEC's claim that the YEC
    view makes their faith suspect! I gave numerous examples. How can the
    comments I cited from this very list be interpreted any other way? They
    have clearly portrayed YEC's as being agents of the devil and on the road
    to hell.

    My point was not that YEC's are innocent of the attitudes you point out,
    but that many non-YEC's are guilty as well.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 03 2001 - 13:01:57 EDT