John W Burgeson wrote:
> George wrote:
> " 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
> about it.
On your 1st point, Gould is in no danger of being considered a
crypto-YEC. The ASA as an organization is thought by many to be a
crypto-creationist (i.e., anti-evolution) organization.
On your 2d point, I agree that YEC views need to be opposed, but if
PSCF is the place where that is done then its effectiveness is diminished in
other ways. I guess it's a judgment call. The fundamental problem behind
YEC popularity is theological, and the remedy will have to be biblical &
theological at a level deeper than interpretation of individual texts. PSCF
can contribute to that. But one more article presenting yet another
concordist approach to Genesis or pointing out errors of YECs isn't likely to
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 07 2001 - 20:09:03 EDT