RE: The YECs you have with you always

From: Glenn Morton (glenn.morton@btinternet.com)
Date: Sun Mar 30 2003 - 02:13:59 EST

  • Next message: Peter Brunt: "RE: appearance of age and the goodness of God"

    Hi Michael, you wrote:

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Michael Roberts [mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk]
    >Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 9:16 PM
    >To: Glenn Morton; asa@calvin.edu; Jonathan Clarke
    >Subject: Re: The YECs you have with you always
    >
    >
    >I dont wish to say much about Glenn's piece.By using a sleight of hand in
    >defining any who accept a late creation of man (c4000BC) as YEC he is able
    >to makes lots of people YECs. By his definition I would like to add the
    >following to his list of YECs from the 19th century; Lyell, Darwin,
    >Sedgwick, Buckland, Henlsow, Herschell, Conybeare, Kelvin, Playfair and
    >hundreds of others. His definition reduces his article to sheer farce and
    >historical nonsense.

    It is not farce to say that your claim that the age of the earth issue was
    settled long before 1860 is falsified strongly by the evidence. One must
    ask, 'For whom was the issue settled?'

    It certainly wasn't settled for those between 1850 and the end of the
    century who were YECs by ANY definition. All these people beleived that the
    earth and the universe were created approximately 7000 years ago. They
    include Eleazar Lord, Moses Stuart, Strachan, Thomas Hutton, Dr. Gordon,
    Patrick MacFarlane, Dean Cockburn, Phillip Gosse(of whom you erroneously
    claim was about the only YEC in the late 1850s), MacDonald, the anonymous
    American author of the Creation and the Deluge, Abraham Mills, George Weber,
    Benjamin Newton, Herbert Morris and Rev Cunningham mentioned by MacFarlane.

    Given this, exactly who are you claiming that the issue was settled for?
    Only those of whom you have read? I quote you again:

        By the 1850s the Anti-geologists were a spent force and even such an
    extreme Evangelical as J. Cumming accepted geology. Almost the only
    exception was Phillip Gosse in Omphalos (1857) (Roberts, 2001)
    http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/200102/0174.html

    and

        Finally there was no serious battle of Genesis and Geology, but a few
    Christians objected to geology. By 1860 biblical literalism was virtually
    extinct but was revived in the USA in 1961 in the form of Creationism.
    (Roberts, 2001) http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/200102/0174.html

    Both of these statements are clearly falsified by the data I present on my
    web page
    http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/nineteenth.htm. Christians kept
    publishing books with titles like: Antidote against Modern Geology or
    Atheisms of Geology. Doesn't sound like there wasn't a battle between
    Genesis and Geology with things like that being published. And evidence I
    have on that web page shows that even christians like Savile didn't accept
    geology, nor did Galloway, an Anglican minister. And Savile, an old
    universe guy, clearly was a Biblical literalist. He wrote:

    Now, if we come to examine Bunsens theory for extending the period of the
    creation of man to 20,000 B. C., we find it resting upon these three
    grounds. (a) He considers that it would requires that length of time for the
    formation and perfection of the various languages in use amongst the
    civilized nations of the earth. The question which virtually arises is this.
    Shall we prefer the inference of a learned scholar in the present day, to
    the positive statement of an inspired man made between 3000 and 4000 years
    ago? (Savile, 1862, p. 71)

    He literally prefers the Scripture to science.

    You have the tougher position epistemologically. You claim that biblical
    literalism was virtually extinct. All these YEC people and then including
    Savile, Galloway and other old-earth creationists, who believed the Bible
    told a literal history of the earth, prove you wrong. How many and how
    large a group of YEC is required for you to acknowledge that Biblical
    literalism WASN'T extinct as you claim? Tell me what it would take and how
    many authors of YEC persuasion I must find in order for you to give up this
    erroneous claim that the age of the earth issue was settled in 1860.
    Whatever number you give, me, I bet I can find them. All I have to do is go
    look at the devotional literature of the day!

    >
    >I also politely request him to read carefully what I wrote. I have no doubt
    >that there were some YEC in the 1860s but they were rare. The only written
    >one I found was Newton in 1862 out of several hundred I read. But if I
    >followed Glenn's definition of YEC then I can probably add another 20-30.

    Forget my definition. I listed 15 published YECs who believed that the earth
    was created a few thousand yeas ago. Explain the 15 published YECs from
    1850-1871 which I have run into in only two and a half years of reseach.
    Explain why in 25 years of research you have failed to find any of these
    guys? Is it because you weren't looking?

    These books and Authors were published and republished over and over.
    MacFarlane was publishing from the 1840s until the 1870s.
    Weber's YEC history book was published from 1853 until the 1890s (14 times
    from 1853-1859).
    Newton was published at least 3 times from the early 1860s until at least
    1882
    Mills was published in 1856 and 1875.

    Who was buying all those books? Those for whom the age of the earth issue
    was settled? I doubt it. Look at it logically, Michael. I have presented 15
    YECs by anyone's definition from a period for which you said (from your 25
    years of research) there were only 2 (Newton and Gosse). I found at least 13
    more in only a tenth of the time you have been looking.

    >
    >Also he needs to judge all agianst a backcloth of what the range of
    >geological opinion was on the age of the earth, geological times and
    >especially the base of the Cambrian and the antiquity of man. If he did so
    >he would realise just how false his argument is.

    I would suggest that my argument is aimed at your claims that Biblical
    literalism was 'virtually extinct' in 1860. My research shows it wasn't.
    As I said, these books are not hard to find. One must wonder why you have
    missed them in your 25 years of 'research'.

    You wrote:
              "After twenty-five years of research, I have not found one
             Anglican clergyman who held to a six-day creation in 1860, so how
    could
             Darwin destroy that belief? (If you ever read that Darwin destroyed
             belief in a six-day creation, then consider the writer a monkey
    rather
             than descended from apes!)

    I agree that Darwin didn't destroy six-day creationism. It continued right
    past Darwin's time.

    Sincerely,

    The monkey.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Mar 31 2003 - 00:17:52 EST