Re: [asa] spoiler alert ... a little quiz about YEC

From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
Date: Fri May 01 2009 - 16:28:22 EDT

Answer at bottom. SPOILER ALERT.

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:

> 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

(1) OK.
(2) I guessed you made it up or it was someone who was not a creationist as
I don't know any prominent YEC who would say this with the first definition
being canonical.
(3) The two statements contradict each other.
(4) Oh my. It's a self-serving statement by Dean Kenyon in an affidavit to
the Supreme Court to try to misrepresent creationism to make it
constitutional.
http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/kenyon.html The Supreme
Court didn't buy it in Edwards v. Aguillard. Kenyon went on to be an author
of Pandas and Peoples which is another way to get around the issue. The
affidavit above was entered into evidence in the Kitzmiller case as evidence
that Kenyon was explicitly defending "creation science"—and advocating that
it be given equal time in public schools and textbooks as the "only"
alternative to evolution—while at the same time working on *Of Pandas and
People*.

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

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 16:29:12 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 01 2009 - 16:29:12 EDT