Re: Attacks

Glenn R. Morton (
Wed, 27 May 1998 21:50:01 -0500

At 06:02 AM 5/27/98 +0800, Stephen Jones wrote:
>For the record, unless I indicate otherwise, when I say that Glenn
>destructively criticises Christian apologists, I mean he destructively
>criticises their *positions*, not their persons.

We might actually be making progress here. I would absolutely plead guilty
to this. In fact I would proudly plead guilty.

In the marketplace of ideas, an idea survives only if it can stand up to
criticism. Ideas that are no good or are erroneous must be criticised.
Ideas that are correct, can't be destroyed. The concept a few years ago
about cold fusion was destroyed by the criticism of other scientists. The
idea was not strong enough, and didn't have the observational support to
withstand the criticism. On the other hand, the concept of high
temperature superconductivity did survive criticism and is a flourishing
area of research. This is how science works.

And when Christians deal in science they MUST play by the rules of science.
We can't allow weak hypotheses in our apologetics. If Christian apologists
are unable or unwilling to present ideas that can't be falsified by the
simplest observations, then their hypotheses need to be removed from the
field of play so that we can finally get a solution for the
Scripture/Science issues. In other words Stephen, if the ideas you think I
am destroying were any good, I wouldn't be able to destroy them. period.

Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information