RE: [asa] Greetings - An introduction

From: Dick Fischer <>
Date: Wed Sep 10 2008 - 19:17:56 EDT

Hi Ted:

So we are in agreement that Progressive Creationists such as RTB by and
large reject common ancestry for all categories of animal life including
humans. In other words they reject the validity of the fossil record as
a record of common descent, and the genetic record to boot. Did I miss
Dick Fischer, GPA president
Genesis Proclaimed Association
"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Davis []
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:39 AM
To: ASA; Dick Fischer
Subject: RE: [asa] Greetings - An introduction

This very much depends, Dick, on how one defines the PC view. From my
perspective as an historian of science and religion, I prefer to define
a TE
as someone who accepts common descent even for humans (at least for the
human body), and a PC as someone who does not accept human evolution but
does accept an old earth and life/death long before humans. Someone
definitions might differ, obviously; there is no monopoly on such

Using these definitions, however, I consider James Dana to have been a
He never accepted human evolution, but he did accept a whole lot of
macroevolution. There have been others in this category also. Ross of
course affirms millions of acts of separate creation through the
periods. Dana was in a very different place from Ross.


>>> "Dick Fischer" <> 9/9/2008 8:19 PM >>>
Hi George:
Anybody correct me if I'm wrong, but human evolution is only one RTB
rejection. Progressive Creationists reject mutual, shared, common
ancestry for existing species altogether. No links between horses and
zebras for one glaring example. And the genetic distance between horses
and zebras is greater than between humans and chimps.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Sep 10 19:18:45 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Sep 10 2008 - 19:18:45 EDT