Re: [asa] Designed Kangaroos?

From: Michael Roberts <>
Date: Fri Aug 03 2007 - 08:59:24 EDT

Tut, tut Iain You are getting as bad as me!

An excellent quote. There are many things we should be flexible about when there is insufficient to make a firm conclusion. On the interpretation of Gen 1-3 people were flexible about it up to about 1820, when no reasonable person could question the vast age of the earth. Before that there was little consensus, except that very few went for a strict 6 day creation - Ussher was a minority. Most Christian savants had no problem with an increasing amount of geological time, but then numbers of them were developing the geology behind the time.

As for death before the Fall and predation, as this became apparent just before 1800, most weren't concerned because it was not seen as important either way and so it was adopted WITHOUT any concern over the atonement.

I began my chapter in Myth and Geology with the following;

In the year 1550, no educated person doubted that the earth was only a few thousand years old, but by the year 1860, no educated person doubted that

the earth was millions of years old. No better comment of the conservative Anglican view in the 1860s can be found than in Samuel Wilberforce's

'Answers to Essay and Reviews' where one contributor, the astronomer the Revd Richard Main, wrote 'Some school-books still teach to the ignorant

that the earth is 6000 years old . . . . No welleducated person of the present day shares that delusion'.

PICCARDI, L. & MASSE, W. B. (eds) Myth and Geology.

Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 273, 39-49.

0305-8719/07/$15.00 # The Geological Society of London 2007.


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Iain Strachan
  To: Michael Roberts
  Cc: Merv ; ; Ted Davis ; Peter Loose
  Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 12:02 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Designed Kangaroos?

  A final comment that I hope Peter (and I wish all YEC's) would take on board:

  Consistent with the claim that Genesis 1-3 is difficult and obscure, Augustine repeatedly urges restraint, flexibility, openness to new interpretations, and openness to new knowledge that may provide insight into the text. He says that "in matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision ... we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture" (p. 41).

  The full article is at

  Davis Young is quoting St. Augustine from "City of God".

  Bold emphasis mine. Peter, stop trying to force things to conform to your narrow view of scripture. The search for truth has for a long time justly undermined the Young Earth view that the earth is only a few thousand years old. To try and twist science to conform to your pre-ordained view is to propagate falsehood and dishonesty, and is to be fought against vehemently. [ I'd like to add that when I was sympathetic to YEC I got to review articles for the AiG Tech Journal. I've never seen such utter rubbish and drivel in all my life. I rejected virtually every single one & it was clear that the people who wrote them were intelligent scientists, who were nonetheless in the grip of a vast delusion that made them ignore anything that didn't fit].


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Aug 3 09:00:53 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Aug 03 2007 - 09:00:53 EDT