I wrote: " I, of course, as well as most Christians, take #1 as the most
reasonable > position, given that I must accept Allen's statement above.
Which may, or may not, be true itself. I am suspicious of a person with
so much certainty."
Allen noted that:"I think your claim "as well as most Christians" is not
supportable by numbers."
Yeah, you might be right. The silliness of ICR and answersingenesis and
the like has had a lot of effect over the years.
I noted once that during the time 125 of us gathered at an Austin
conference to discuss (and cuss) ID, at the same time ICR was bringing in
3000 or so in a downtown Austin Baptist church.
So, Allen, I'll give you the numbers. It means little, of course, to have
1000s of relatively uneducated people "on your side." Enjoy.
I said it once -- I'll say it again. If I allow a literal reading of
Genesis to guide my understanding of scripture, I may as well either quit
science, or, more likely, give up the Christian viewpoint as simply too
bizarre to bother with. Most probably the latter.
John Burgeson (Burgy)
(science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 22 2001 - 16:26:28 EDT