From: Michael Roberts (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Mar 17 2003 - 06:21:33 EST
Thanks Gary. I am trying to decide with to hear Ham speak on The Lie in
Liverpool next friday and whether it's worth driving 120 miles for that
Last friday I went to an AiG meeting in Preston and got the usual stuff with
no questions allowed at the end to prevent wicked apostates like me asking
the awkward question. The speaker made much of evolutionists' fraudulent
arguments over the peppered moth and Haeckel's embryos. The first argument
is sheer dishonesty as Kettlewell may have had shortcomings but was not
Perhaps someone ought to write a tract (encyclopaedia?) on creationists'
fraudulent claims. I frankly do not see how someone who is out to discredit
the faith of other Christians who dare to believe in an old earth can be
As well as all Aig's scientific arguments being fallacious their historical
arguments put forward by Terry Mortenson are equally so.
You may find some of my stuff on http://blackburn.anglican.org/ go to index
and look up science and religion. along with other websites. I do have a
milder version of a "geologist on creationism" which might be better..
I don't know how to suggest you write to your pastor as he will probably
have no scientific credentials and will probably be inclined to a literal
genesis. It is also very difficult to persuade many today that the bible is
pre-scientific and only refers to "scientific matters" in everyday language.
As you say there is the problem of pi and also 4-legged insects, not to
mention a flat earth in Genesis one, Exod 20 (second commandment) and !s 40
22 the circle of the earth , but they talk their way out of that.
Also lookup recent archives of the Association of Christian Geologists
listserve - Jan -March 2003 and you will find some useful stuff. Access
through the asa site.
Any way I must get back to writing up some entries for a dictionary of 19
century scientists. I am doing 3 geological clergymen - Hailstone, Lewis and
Symonds all of who were old earthers, Lewis largely gave us the Silurian
System but Murchison grabbed all of the credit and Symonds accepted Darwin
by 1861. In fact there was hardly a dogmatic young earther in UK or USA in
1860, but probably many lay people accepted the bible literally because they
knew no better. The concern today is that people of education accept such a
nonsensical outlook and seem blind to the fact that it is both false and
damages the Gospel. Perhaps your pastor needs to ask why virtually every
evangelical minister after 1850 accepted an old earth. I cant even name 6
who did not.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Mar 17 2003 - 06:21:12 EST