From: Glenn Morton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Feb 02 2003 - 11:53:58 EST
>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
Well, maybe you misunderstood me every time we have spoken on this issue. I
have over and over said that the YEC movement didn't die and was more
powerful in the mid-19th century and every time, I get whapped by the
historians. Now I find you agree with me after all. The world is truly
The simple fact is that no one spends 10% of a book on an issue of no
interest to the readers.
Let's look at it this way. Would you write an apologetical book
>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.
Michael, this gets a wee bit irritating. I didn't say he spent 10% of all
his books arguing against YEC. Please read what I actually write. Neither
The Old Red Sandstone, nor In the Footprints is really an apologetical book,
although IN the Footprints is closer to it because he argues against
evolution (the type of that day in age so don't try to say I am erroneously
saying that Miller argued against DArwin in 1851).
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
>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.
Miller was in some sense, like Faraday, a lower class person admitted to
society and listened to but never fully accepted by that very class
conscious society. Surely you don't deny the class consciousness of this
society at that time. The fact that he was listened to at all by the upper
classes sets him apart from the rest of the stonemasons with whom he
I think you comments are based upon a false view of what I am saying or
indeed have said.
>IN 1851 THERE WERE CLEARLY A GOOD
>NUMBER OF SEMI-EDUCATED YECS AND THOSE WITH A BIT OF EDUCATION.
I am glad you now agree with me that there were a good number of YECs. THat
is precisely what our disagreement has been about over the past few months.
Indeed, Jonathan keeps citing you against me and now you agree that they
were there all the time. This too is a bit irritating, not Jonathan, but
the fact that you never seem to correct Jonathan that you too beleive there
was a significant anti-science movement in the UK during this time.
>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.
No I haven't misunderstood Secord. Why do you constantly charge everyone
with misunderstanding everything? It sounds a bit condescending Michael.
Everyone misunderstands except you. I know exactly who those guys are, But
Penn, whom you left out of your little edited list from Secord was most
definitely young-earth and he last published in 1840 to my knowledge. I have
his books. I quote from him
"...Physical philosphy, for a long time past, had taken upon itself to deny
the truth of the Mosaical statements, and often with much sarcasm, because
it assigned a date of not more than about four thousand years ago, for the
period of a Revolution which was able to cause marine substances to be
imbedded in all parts of this inhabited earth; even in places the most
remote from teh sea, and in elevations very considerably above its present
level. But, the progress of physical research during the last few years,
conducted by naturalists of acute and honest minds, has at last terminated
in so signal a concession to the testimony of the Mosaical record in this
particular; that, added to the authority of Bacon's and Newton's philosophy,
it renders that testimony paramount, as the rule by which all inquiries
concerning revolutions general to the globe outght henceforth to be
conducted. For, the mineral geology has been brought at length, by physical
phenomena alone, to these cnclusions; 'That the soils of all the plains were
deposited in the bosom of a tranquil water; that their actual order is only
to be dated from the period of the retreat of that water; that the date of
that period is not very ancient; and, that it cannot be carried back above
five or six thousand years.'" Granville Penn, Mineral and Mosaic Geologies,
Vol 2, (London: James Duncan, 1825), p. 6
I will add this quote to my page
He misrepresents Cuvier in that quotation but Penn, who was as influential
as Henry Morris, was still being cited by Miller in 1857. Why? Because the
YEC influence was greater than your study of the clery can detect. I don't
disagree with what you have said about the clergy. But that simply doesn't
explain why Penn, who died in 1844, was still being fought by Miller in
1857, 13 years after his death. There is no reason for this other than that
Penn was still highly influential.
And the real point is that science was accepted only to a point. I will
stand with Secord on the concept that biblicallly based views were a
powerful force in the middle part of the 19th century. THat included
widespread belief in Noah's flood, some global and some local. THe same
positions we see today are to be found back then. I even found a 19th
I wrote and Michael inserted the caps
>While YECs were certainly in a minority, those who read books from
>authors CHALMERS AND HITCHCOCK???may very well have been YEC,
Yes, even Chalmers and Hitchcok. Are you saying that no YEC would ever read
them? Give me a break. YECs today read geology texts and even Kitcher's
Abusing Science. They don't read them to understand them, they read them
to find fault.
> 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.
I will stand corrected on this. Some clearly did have the money. Penn was
William Penn's grandson or something like that. However, you have
constantly told this group that there weren't YECs at this time, and now you
argue with me acknowledging their existence. Frankly, I better stop because
I might say something I don't want to. It looks to me that you have been
defending a rather indefensible position. If there weren't YECs then why
were some of them able to get the money to publish the views that YOU SAY
You can have the last word. After being condescended to for months about
the non-existence of these YEC and biblically based people, to have you now
say they existed and act as if it is my problem, makes me see nothing
further to discuss.
for lots of creation/evolution information
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 11:56:25 EST