From: Michael Roberts (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Feb 02 2003 - 09:45:31 EST
>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.
AT WHAT POINT HAVE I MADE THIS CONCLUSION? WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW WHAT MOST
PEOPLE THOUGHT THIOUGH I SUSPECT THAT THEY WERE UNTHOUGHTFULLY YEC BY AND
Let's look at it this way. Would you write an apologetical book spending 10%
of the time refuting geocentrism?
ACTUALLY MILLER WROTE 10% OF ONE BOOK REFUTING YEC. TO MY KNOWLEDGE HE MAKES
NO MENTION IN THE OTHER ELEVEN VOLUMES OF HIS COLLECTED WORKS.
Of course not. You would bore your
readers to death. Yet, I can point you to modern Christians who believe in
geocentrism. But they are such a small minority as to be unworthy of
comment. Thus, you find no books refuting their position. You don't even
find a chapter refuting their position. Yet with Miller, you and Michael
seem to be giving the impression (also most likely incorrect) that there
were hardly any YECs in the mid to late 19th century. BY THE MID 19TH
CENTURY EVEN MORTENSON AGREES THAT THERE WERE VERY FEW YECS. I WOULD ADD
THAT THERE WOULD BE A HUGHER NUMBER AMONG THE UNEDUCATED. I see no logical
reason to agree with that given the observation that Miller spent time
refuting those positions. Indeed Miller quotes some of these people. Are
you all saying that they spent large chunks of their books refuting a tiny
minority position which would not have been of any interest to their
readers? I would also note that the social structure of the UK in the 19th
century was such that the upper classes (which often included the clergy)
engaged in a discussion with themselves and ignored or saw as irrelevant the
views of the lower classes. MILLER WAS NOT UPPER CLASS AND MECHANICS'
INSTITUTE LIBRARIES WERE THRIVING ALL OVER BRITAIN. YOU COMMENTS ARE BASED
ON A FALSE VIEW OF VICTORIAN SOCIETY.
I would quote Hitchcock: "Too often, however, up to the present time, has
the theologian on the one hand, looked with jealousy upon science, fearful
that its influence was hurtful to the cause of true religion; while on the
ohter hand, the philosopher, in the pride of sceptical spirit, has scorned
an alliance between science and theology, and even fancied many a
discrepancy." Hitchcock, 1851 p. 476
Why would he write 'up to the present time' if there weren't a significant
number of people rejecting the scientific view? Would I or you write, 'Too
often, however, up to the present time, has the theologian rejected
heliocentricity?? I doubt it. There are hardly any of them. Admittedly,
Hitchcock was speaking of North America. IN 1851 THERE WERE CLEARLY A GOOD
NUMBER OF SEMI-EDUCATED YECS AND THOSE WITH A BIT OF EDUCATION.
Concerning the lack of acceptance of modern science by the laity I would
quote James A. Secord, who edited Lyell's Principles:
"For most readers, the authority of Scripture continued to outweigh that of
strata-maps and sections, so that biblically-oriented accounts of earth
history predominated in publishers' lists right thorugh the first half of
the cnetury. Sharon Turner's Sacred HIstory of the World of 1832, 'firmly
attached to the great Newtonian principle, of the Divine causation of all
things', went into its eighth edition two years before Lyell's book did.
Books in the same tradition were written by Thomas cHalmers, Edward Hitchcok
Granville Penn, John Bird Sumner, Andrew Ure and Nicholas Wiseman--respected
authors whose writings often sold more copies and were better known than
those of Lyell and his friends." James A. Secord, "Introduction," Charles
Lyell, Principles of Geology, Penguin Books, 1997, p. xxiv
JIM SECORD IS INCLUDING ALL WHO WROTE biblically-oriented accounts of earth
history . BUT NOTE THAT CHALMERS, HITCHCOCK, SUMNER AND WISEMAN WERE ALL
OEC. YOU HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD JIM.
While YECs were certainly in a minority, those who read books from the above
authors CHALMERS AND HITCHCOCK???may very well have been YEC,
You certainly give greater
>emphaisis to the 10% than you do the 90%. If you do not want to give this
>impression, perhaps a bit more empahsis on the 90% would be good
In the 19th century, the laity didn't have the money to get their views
published and thus, those views are like fiber artifacts. TOTAL
NONSENSE - WE WILL START WITH MILLER, THEN PENN, FAIRHOLME, URE, TURNER,
MURRAY, AND DOZENS OF OTHERS BOTH OEC AND YEC.
AN INDEPTH STUDY OF JOURNALS WOULD BE USEFUL AS WELL.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 10:08:34 EST