One of the main obstacles I have found over the decades of trying to get a Christian perpsective on evolution has been the whole problem of accurate representation George Murphy brought up in relation to Well's Ikons.
The trouble is that anti-evolutionists usually write from a Christian perspective and thus their sympathisers assume that they will always be accurate and reliable. The trouble is that many are inaccurate and unreliable and their writings and lectures are full of mistakes, misquotations etc. However gently one tries to point this out one is met with first disbelief and than horror and anger as one is percieved to accuse the writer/lecturer of dishonesty.
Take Henry Morris and the Genesis Flood ; as Jonathan Clarke pointed out it is instructive to check out his references and presumably like me he found this to be often misquotations. It is difficult to expalin why they are wrong to a non-scientist and devout beleiver who perceives one of accusing the writer of lying. The temperature rises with more heat than light and the issue becomes polarised.
At times the response is that atheistic evolutionists fiddle the evidence , that I do not care about at the present. However it is essential that Christians whether YEC OEC ID or TE or anything else argue with care and scrupulousness as they deal with the writings of anyone whether they agree with them or not.
I am afraid I cannot respect those who allow too many misquotes to come into their work. I am sure all of us err at times but we should be ready to be corrected by others.
This is a moral issue.
----- Original Message -----
From: george murphy
To: Adrian Teo
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: Jonathan Well's Icons of Evolution
Adrian Teo wrote:
I can't argue with your point, George, although I would be reluctant to accuse Wells of dishonesty so readily.
He seems to be quite willing to imply that textbook writers are dishonest in their presentations of evolution. But if you're interested in fine distinctions, note that I said that the procedure, not Wells himself, was dishonest. There is also no reason to think that I "readily" move to attributions of dishonesty.
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 16 2001 - 18:29:56 EDT