Re: CT article: Darwinists, not Christians, stonewalling the facts

From: George Murphy <>
Date: Fri Apr 01 2005 - 08:16:59 EST

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Morton" <>
To: "'George Murphy'" <>; <>
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 7:28 AM
Subject: RE: CT article: Darwinists, not Christians, stonewalling the facts

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: George Murphy []
>> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 6:16 AM
>> To: "'George Murphy'" <>; "'Randy Isaac'"
>> <>; <>
>> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 7:35 PM
>> Subject: RE: CT article: Darwinists, not Chris
>> OK, so can we take this as an official statement that Glenn
>> Morton's method
>> of determining how much historical data there is early
>> Genesis is "personal
>> whimsy"?
> And where is your personal crystal ball which gives you a god-like view
> of the world, George? Two can play at that game. You can't PROVE how
> much history or lack there of is in the account. Neither can I. Both of
> us, indeed ANYONE constructing a theology balances many different
> competing issues. So don't sound so high and mighty that you KNOW the
> truth and all others are wrong. You are beginning to sound like a YEC
> here.

This is the old "Argument weak here, shout like hell!" approach. I said
nothing about having "irrefutable" evidence or anything of the sort. I said
that there are several approaches that can help us learn about the value of
a text as historical data. I didn't claim that they were infallible. But
they are certainly better than an approach that speaks of putting
historicity into a text and deciding matters based on "personal whimsy." &
the charge that I'm "beginning to sound like a YEC" is silly. I'm not the
one starting from a dogmatic position that there must be some irreducible
minimum of accurate historical data in early Genesis.

Received on Fri Apr 1 08:17:17 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 01 2005 - 08:17:17 EST