Re: Why?/Re: Answersingenesis

From: Todd S. Greene (
Date: Tue Apr 03 2001 - 13:47:58 EDT

  • Next message: John W Burgeson: "Re: Answersingenesis"

    Hi, Greg.

    Again, while I disagree with what I think you are claiming, I
    appreciate your comments.

    Let's say that there is a Christian who goes around quite publicly
    decrying "the fallible wisdom of man" in believing certain things from
    a scientific perspective which go against what this Christian believes
    that the Bible teaches. Let us say that, further, this man teaches
    that one cannot be a good Christian unless he accepts what this man
    believes the Bible teaches (which according to science is clearly an
    empirically false belief). Additionally, let's say that the belief we
    are talking about is geocentrism.

    Now, would you agree that this geocentrist is subjecting Christianity
    to ridicule by skeptics (deja vu, Augustine) by tying his belief in so
    intimately with Christianity to the point of saying that anyone who
    disagrees with his particular belief can't be a good Christian?
    Skeptics who are antagonistic to Christianity have "had a field day"
    with the teaching of people like Henry Morris and Duane Gish. This is
    a statement of fact, and I certainly don't hesitate to point out this
    fact as a true description of the situation.

    As an example, based on the relevant information from the real world
    itself, the universe has been around far longer than merely 6,000
    years. So if the YECs are right, if the Bible absolutely teaches that
    the universe has not existed longer than about 6,000 years, then the
    Bible clearly *is* wrong. What YECs fail to comprehend is that their
    beliefs have been empirically falsified. Thus, if the Bible really
    teaches young earth creationism, as they claim it does, this only
    serves to discredit their entire theology and religion, not the other
    way around as they seem to think.

    The context of my statement about Morris and Gish was regarding the
    fact that YECs, in advocating young earth creationism, have subjected
    their own religion to much ridicule. This is simply a statement of
    fact. Now you tell me whether or not you think that's a good thing. I
    certainly do not believe that Morris and Gish are covert atheists.
    (And obviously no one thinks this.) My statement is exactly what I
    said it was: a standing joke among many atheists (i.e., they don't
    believe that, either).

    There is much discussion in this forum. And there are many topics
    related to the general subject. Discussing religious attitudes just
    happens to be one of them.

    And this is my last word on this particular issue at this particular

    Incidentally, I'm no biologist, but how about a mutation occurring by
    chance which then ends up being propagated due to increasing its
    owner's fitness in its environment (which includes the members of
    species that it interacts with)? Let's ask some biologists whether or
    not specific experimentation has been done which bears this out.

    Todd S. Greene

    ###### Gregory P. Kerr, 4/3/01 12:58 PM ######
    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?


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 03 2001 - 13:39:14 EDT