Re: David Livingstone's take on geology and creation

From: George Murphy (
Date: Sun Feb 02 2003 - 06:45:25 EST

  • Next message: Michael Roberts: "Re: David Livingstone's take on geology and creation"

    Glenn Morton wrote:
    > Hi Jon,
    > >-----Original Message-----
    > >From: []On
    > >Behalf Of jdac
    > >Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 1:13 AM
    > >First of all we must defer to Michael's research. As I recall his data
    > >indicates that no more than 10% of Anglican clergy were YEC in the
    > >first half of
    > >the 19th century.
    > It is not his research I am disputing. It is his conclusion. The concept
    > that because the clergy were all one way doesn't logically require that the
    > laity were that way also. My point is that like today, most clergy are not
    > rejecting of science, yet much of modern US laity appear to be. Thus, while
    > Michael's research can be correct, it doesn't follow that they actually led
    > the people on this issue.

            You've put your finger on one of the major problems in this area: Clergy don't
    exercise appropriate leadership. Those who realize that the earth is old, that
    evolution has happened, & in general that real science has to be taken seriously,
    usually don't say much of anything about it when that's called for - e.g., when
    preaching on texts that have to do with creation or in actively opposing attempts to get
    bad science into public schools. Some don't want to say anything about topics that they
    don't have formal training in (which may not keep them from expressing their opinions
    about politics &c). Others either don't think it's important theologically or don't
    think it's worth the possibility of stirring up controversy. & many others just have no
    clue about what is going on in science.

    George L. Murphy

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 06:46:47 EST