I'm sorry my definition of evolution offends you, and that you see it as
'ludicrous'. However, as I think you'll agree, it has the merit of being
unambiguous - which cannot be said of what '99.99% of the educated
world' understand by 'evolution' - a point originally made by Dick
John, it hardly needs me to say that we are each responsible for
bringing our 'ship' safely to 'port' at the 'end of the day'. Clearly,
my view of the 'voyage' differs from yours, and from the majority on
this list. But I would like to think that an on-going, frank and honest
discussion re the details of what divide us as Christians would meet
with your approval. I sincerely hope so.
John W Burgeson wrote:
> Vernon wrote: "For me, as a Bible believer and YEC, the term 'evolution'
> means any theory or doctrine of origins that requires its adherents to
> ignore, selectively 'interpret', or otherwise do violence to the
> I think, Vernon, exclusive of the obvious fact that the above
> "definition" is ludicrous, that the words "violence to the scriptures"
> need to be replaced by "violence to a strict literal reading of early
> Genesis." At least then, the "definition" would be self-consistent, and
> not denigrate those of us who do not see any reason why early Genesis has
> to be taken literally. It would still be ludicrous, of course, because it
> has nothing at all to do with how 99.99% of the educated world used the
> term "evolution."
> 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 : Mon Oct 15 2001 - 17:42:35 EDT