" Those who are concerned about ASA being a significant factor in serious
science-theology discussions should avoid putting anything at all about
YEC claims, pro or con, in PSCF. The same is true, for that matter, of
all concordist discussions of Gen.1-3. When many people see these debates
going on in such a journal at the beginning of the 21st century they
conclude that the organization which publishes it is hopelessly
antiquated & not worth being involved with."
My first reaction was to agree.
My second one is just the opposite.
Stephen Gould writes frequently on arguments that falsify YEC. I don't
see anyone disdaining his writings, or the publications they appear in,
on that account.
Like it or not, a YEC view predominates today. Ignoring it is simply
obscurantism. It is as likely that people, seeing it is not discussed,
will conclude it is a reputable view as think ASA antiquated by talking
Burgy (John Burgeson)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 07 2001 - 13:31:54 EDT