Re: My Daughter is a YEC

From: george murphy (
Date: Fri May 24 2002 - 17:27:34 EDT

  • Next message: Michael Roberts: "Re: The firmament -- a solid barrier to concordism"

    Shuan Rose wrote:

    > Its not clear to me that the creation of the universe was
    >for the sole
    > purpose of providing a space shuttle for Man. I believe-along with CS Lewis-
    > that there may be many other older intelligences with whom God is in
    > relation. However, even if this were not true, we really cannot question the
    > why and how of the creation of the universe. See Job 38-41.Its God's
    > universe , and he creates it the way he wants to.

             Ephesians 1:10 sheds some light on this.
    George L. Murphy
    "The Science-Theology Interface"

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: []On
    > Behalf Of Walter Hicks
    > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 6:41 PM
    > To: bivalve
    > Cc: asa
    > Subject: Re: My Daughter is a YEC
    > bivalve wrote:
    > >
    > > >Now when I read some of the ASA statements, there is nothing to rule
    > > >out YEC as something acceptable to ASA. Yet the posts I see indicate
    > > >a totally different story.<
    > >
    > > For me, the distinction is in the general practice of YEC versus an
    > > absolute statement ruling it out. The scientific evidence supports
    > > an old earth and extensive biological evolution. Most popular YEC
    > > deals with this problem through denial, false claims, and similarly
    > > unacceptable ways. However, if someone recognizes this, yet holds a
    > > YEC view in spite of this (e.g., by considering scientific evidence
    > > unimportant or by hoping that new discoveries will overturn the work
    > > of the past few centuries), they are not making false claims about
    > > science. For example, someone on the list a few years ago suggested
    > > that the universe was created a few thousand years ago, but with the
    > > full appearance of a 15 billion year history of natural processes in
    > > order to better enable us to understand natural processes. This view
    > > is internally consistent and compatible with all available scientific
    > > evidence. To me, it seems unnecessarily complex; presumably he found
    > > an old-earth interpretation !
    > > of Genesis 1 unnecessarily complex.
    > We might be thinking of the same person if it was on another list. The
    > claim that I heard, and it actually has some merit is as follows:
    > The universe was created, via Jesus, for man -- if we accept a simple
    > interpretation of the Gospel of John. That being given, there really is
    > no necessity for God to force all of the 15 Billion years to pass by in
    > order to arrive at the point of introducing mankind into the universe.
    > In short, He starts the clock ticking several thousands of years ago
    > with all the history in place. Somewhat like a programmer might do it
    > setting up the background for a simulation or a theatre in setting the
    > scenery for a play.
    > It seemed to me to be a theory that would hold water for even Glenn --
    > at least prior to Adam. I could never find any scientific or
    > philosophical reason to discount it. I'm certain others can!
    > Walt
    > --
    > ===================================
    > Walt Hicks <>
    > In any consistent theory, there must
    > exist true but not provable statements.
    > (Godel's Theorem)
    > You can only find the truth with logic
    > If you have already found the truth
    > without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
    > ===================================

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 24 2002 - 17:29:46 EDT