RE: [asa] a little quiz about YEC

From: <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
Date: Fri May 01 2009 - 16:10:11 EDT

I would also guess that the author was Henry Morris, writing in the
context of arguing that creation science was not religion and hence could
be taught in US public schools.
Don N

> Before seeing anyone else's guesses, my guess is Henry Morris.
>
> I'm not sure it's a fair comparison between the two statements, though.
> The
> one says "YEC conception of history" vs. the other statement is
> "Creation-science does not include as essential parts". One might say (to
> Ken Ham's chagrin) that it's not essential to hold these particular views,
> but yet hold them anyway as part of their "conception" of what is true and
> right. However, I'd guess that there might easily be a bit of
> equivocation
> on this point, because if someone who says these things aren't "essential"
> is pushed in a corner, he would defend them with religious zeal, as if the
> gospel depended on it. But I could be wrong. Also, depending on who is
> framing the argument and for what venue, they might differ on what is
> essential to maintain.
>
>
> Jon Tandy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Ted Davis
> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 10:07 AM
> To: Ted Davis
> Cc: AmericanScientificAffiliation
> Subject: [asa] a little quiz about YEC
>
> This post will be short, as time presently is short.
>
> I found the review of Davis Young's book, written by YEC geologist Marcus
> Ross (who worked with OEC and ID leader Steven Meyer on a DVD about the
> "Cambrian explosion"), quite interesting. Especially, I want to note his
> description of the YEC view, which is also often called "creation science"
> (an older term) or "scientific creationism." Here it is:
>
> "Young-earth creationism is a complex system. YEC's conception of history
> includes not merely a six-rotational-day Creation, but also a young age of
> the earth, miraculous creation of plant and animal life, a commitment to a
> historical Adam and Eve, a historical Fall with universal spiritual and
> physical consequences, and a global catastrophe."
>
> Pretty good description, yes? Nothing controversial in how he would
> define
> it. A given YEC person might reword something or add something (perhaps),
> but surely this is a fair and accurate description of the YEC view.
>
> OK. Now, let me provide a quiz question. (1) Read an alternative
> definition/description given below. (2) Can you guess who said or wrote
> this? You may *NOT* search for the words on the internet, not yet. (3)
> Compare the two definitions/descriptions, in 150 words or less. (4) Now,
> after answering (2) and (3), you are allowed to check your guess by
> searching on the internet. What do you think, now that you see the
> statement and the context?
>
> Here is the other definition/description: "Creation-science does not
> include
> as essential parts the concepts of catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a
> recent inception of the earth or life, from nothingness (ex nihilo), the
> concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts."
>
> If you don't see the significance of this little quiz, incidentally, I'll
> try to make it clear after I see a few guesses and comments. Anyone want
> to
> take this quiz?
>
> Ted
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
> asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri May 1 16:11:13 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 01 2009 - 16:11:13 EDT