Re: Jonathan Well's Icons of Evolution

From: Todd S. Greene (
Date: Tue Apr 17 2001 - 11:49:32 EDT

  • Next message: Todd S. Greene: "Re: Engaging the power of Internet links"

    Hi, Michael.

    I completely agree with you that there is a moral aspect to this general

    Occasional mistakes, even occasional carelessness, simply means you're
    fallible. So what is repeated carelessness, practiced over a long period
    of time, along with an exceedingly high level of obstinacy against
    correcting, or even acknowledging, mistakes? I won't say that that is
    intentional deception, but surely we can't claim that this kind of
    attitude is any better. Having trusted them, and then having found out
    how badly I was misled after digging into the details of various issues,
    I'm not so willing to let them off the hook. (I too remember, back in
    1982 I think it was, when I went to my college library which actually
    had the book, and looked up the reference from *The Genesis Flood* about
    the Lewis Overthrust and read for myself the original context of the
    statements and saw how the writers had been lifted out of context to
    make them appear to be saying exactly the opposite of what the they
    actually said. See

    for a reference on this specific point.) The pervasive pretensions of
    young earth creationist material, and the attitude that engenders them,
    should be taken very seriously - just as seriously as if they were
    lying, because the product that they are delivering is the same either

    It's not just Henry Morris, Duane Gish, and that group. It's also the
    many preachers in many churches who are still to this day perpetuating
    this kind of information that has been discredited time and again. For
    Pete's sake, I'm still reading references to [fill in the blank]
    (shrinking sun, earth's magnetic field decay, moon dust, short-period
    comets, Moon/Spencer's shortcut through space, etc., etc.) being used
    in sermon's, church bulletins, and church class materials. This stuff is
    a cancer, and it's the attitude that spawns it.

    Todd S. Greene

    ###### Michael B.Roberts, 4/16/01 6:28 PM ######
    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

    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 explain 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.

    Michael Roberts

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 17 2001 - 11:40:52 EDT