RE: A Peace Proposal

From: Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Sat Jan 31 2004 - 22:35:12 EST

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> Behalf Of wallyshoes
> Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 7:42 PM
>
> I think that many of them have every bit as much integrity as you
> do, Michael.

Being one of the few people who actually inhabited both worlds, I can tell
you that while I believe what I said as a YEC, I also knew in my heart of
hearts that there were serious problems with my views which I didn't tell
others about. That is a lack of integrity. When a YEC, I have to
acknowledge that I was afraid to actually look at the data which screamed
that I was wrong. That isn't integrity Walter. But I never would have told
the likes of you about my doubts. So you, gullible as you are, would have
defended my integrity.

I also know most of the YEC leadership and many of them have said things to
me about their doubts which would never be said in print or in front of a
speech. One leader said to me that my article "Prolegamena to the Study of
the Sediments," was correct. It showed that the sediments, if due to a
flood, violated the 2nd law of thermo. But then in a meeting when he was
asked about it, he claimed I had made a math error. He never had the
integrity to notify me and when I asked him about the error, he denied that
I had made an error.

When I sent a xerox of the following picture of a duck-like bird nibbling on
the sediment, Gene Chaffin, the editor of the Creation Research Society
Quarterly, denied that this was the fossilized record of a duck-like bird
nibbling (eating).! That isn't integrity, Walter.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/greenriverduckfeet1.jpg

I know that Gish agreed that the Bombadier beetle was a bad argument, and
agreed with a critic not to use it again. Only in the next town he used it
again. That isn't integrity.

The laity, while less responsible, knowingly delude themselves because they
don't want to look at anything that disturbs their viewpoint. . They know
they are doing that but the do it anyway. So, yes, they believe what they
say, but they also know they are ignoring data. I refused to buy and read
Kitchner's Abusing Science when it was published. I didn't really want to
know about his criticisms. I remember walking through a book store seeing
the book and thinking that I ought to read it, but I didn't.

One guy on TheologyWeb said in response to all the geological data that I
have been presenting that it didn't amount to anything more substantial than
hot air because no one knows what a flood would do. Of course, he never
before had criticised his fellow yecs for proposing theories which cliamed
ot describe EXACTLY what the flood had done. That isn't integrity.

As a YEC, I lacked the integrity to deal with the data. Those still in the
YEC camp are equally guilty of the sin I was guilty of. So don't think I am
casting stones at them alone. I did exactly what they do today--ignore
evidence by willfully avoiding it. The laity are not without blame in this
manner any more than I was.

Thomas Barnes proposed a classical view of electromagnetism as a YEC
excercise. I pointed out to him that one couldn't build a cyclotron based
upon his views. He agreed, but that didn't stop him from continuing to push
his views. That isn't integrity, Walter.

I have a very good friend, a geologist who is a YEC who acknowledges the
vast problems associated with YEC. But he ignores them to remain a yec.
That isn't integrity, Walter.

I was once told by a guy who is a global flood advocate about one YEC
leader who told him that he didn't really care what the truth was about the
human footprints he had claimed to have found. My friend had told this guy
that he had found ski tracks in the fossil record. They YEC leader was
willing to use them and when my friend told him that they really weren't
there, the YEC leader told him he really didn't care if the data was true!
The source for this is a guy who is a global flodd advocate. This shows a
lack of integrity in that paraticular YEC leader.

I would disagree with Michael that just because someone believes what they
say but are wrong, that that somehow absolves them of any blame. When I
published my first article in CRSQ, I got a letter from DeRidder, Louisiana.
The author claimed to have invented a perpetual motion machine and he was
sure that the bias of modern science was what was causing him to be
ostracized. He felt that I was a smart person and since I was a YEC, I must
be open minded to such things. His ideas were crazy, but he firmly believed
them. Are we to consider this fellow the moral equivalent of modern
scinece? I vote no! And when I was a yec, I had moral problems because I
hid away from the problems I knew were there. The modern YEC is knowingly
avoiding problems and data. That isn't integrity, Walter.

I know, you want to view both positions as morally equivalent. This is like
what the liberals did during the Cold War. They wanted to see the US and the
USSR as moral equivalents. They weren't and neither are YEC and modern
science moral equivalents. I know of what I speak, because I was with them
and interacted as a YEC for 20 years. They are busy ignoring data. Is that
what Christians should do, Walter?

Christians should stand for truth, unafraind and unashamed. But the YECs
are like the guy who thinks iodine isn't poisonous and advocates drinking
it. He believes what he says, but he is very, very wrong.
Received on Sat Jan 31 22:33:24 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jan 31 2004 - 22:33:25 EST