>From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
>Behalf Of Ted Davis
>Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 1:34 PM
>Subject: Harry Rimmer not a YEC; Rimmer and Morris
>It is understandable why Glenn interprets Harry Rimmer as a YEC, but it is
>incorrect. At least Rimmer never unambiguously advocated that the earth is
>just five days older than the human race. He *did* defend a literal
>creation week, and did so quite often--most famously in a debate
>he had with
>William Bell Riley, in which Rimmer defended the gap view (which
>days, of course, that's its main attraction for fundamentalists) as vs the
>day-age view that Riley preferred.
I will bow to your superior knowledge of Rimmer, but let me as, would people
of that day, reading Rimmer, have also thought he was a YEC? And just for
the record, in my note, I did know of and acknowledge to the group the
possibility that he was a Gap person.
>But Rimmer was clear about his support for the gap view, as vs a "young"
>universe. In *exactly* the same year in which he argued so strongly for
>literal days vs Riley (1929), he published "Modern Science and the
>of Creation," later incorporated into Modern Science and the
>Whatever one may say about Rimmer, he was *not* an advocate of a "young"
>earth. He *did* constantly badger scientists to "prove" claims
>for the ages
>of fossils, particularly hominid fossils, but he didn't doubt the great
>antquity of the earth and the universe. He tried inconsistently to
>amalgamate Price with Scofield, just as he tried inconsistently to do
>numerous other things--inconsistency being one of Rimmer's hallmarks.
>As for Rimmer and Morris, the latter speaks directly about his debt to the
>former, in A History of Modern Creationism (1984). Morris invited
>speak at Rice, admired him, and says that he modeled his own career on
>Rimmer's. I also think (though can't back it up as I can for Morris) that
>Gish modeled his debating style on Rimmer's. For Rimmer's part, I think if
>he were alive today, he'd be a YEC at least for the fellowship, if not for
>the truth of it. But he wasn't, and thus (ironically) the CRS can't give
>him posthumous membership, though he more than anyone else showed them how
>to be a "Scientific" creationist.
Thanks for the correction.
for lots of creation/evolution information
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 13 2002 - 00:51:49 EST