Re: AiG bites the dust

From: John Burgeson (
Date: Sat Sep 28 2002 - 15:11:35 EDT

  • Next message: John Burgeson: "Re: Did Peter walk on water?"

    Jay writes, in part: "On one side there is a lack of skepticism about
    radioisotope and stratigraphic dating techniques as well as fossil record
    interpretation. On the other side there is a similar dismissive attitude
    about the same hypotheses and a lack of skepticism about certain biblical
    interpretations. The shrill voices on both sides ... ."

    >From the above, I perceive that you see about the same amount of credibility
    from ICR and AIG as you do from the scientific community.

    All I can recommend to you if you really believe this is to go to AIG and
    ICR with the hard questions. Ask them for their explanations of the
    recognized scientific data, or if they reject that data, on what basis they
    do so.

    I went deep into this in the late 80s -- even attended a week-long seminar
    by ICR. I gave them every benefit of the doubt. I entertained Gish, Ham and
    Morris at lunch and quizzed them. I like them. But they sell snake oil. They
    do great harm to the cause of Christ whenever some young person, steeped in
    their theology (derived from the SDA) and mesmerized by their pseudoscience
    finds his way into any one of the many internet chat groups (I help run one
    on Compuserve) and gets literally chopped to pieces. Or worse -- goes to
    college and finds out his "science" is a joke. At that point, as friend
    Glenn has documemented, he tosses Christianity over the side.


    Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 28 2002 - 15:11:36 EDT