>"I agree - their presentations are technically very good. But not
>only is their science _badly_ flawed, their theology is dreadful."
If it's me being quoted the exact statement (from my book) was:
"The bitter irony about young-earth doctrine is that not only is the
science dreadful, even the biblical exegesis is unsound."
>Let me lay out a scenario that finds ICR a positive force for
>Christianity.
>
>Assume that as a result of ICR's efforts 20,000 people each year become
>Christians.
>
>Some of those folks would have been reached by other evangelical means.
>Some would not have been. Let's say 20 percent would not have been.
>
>So far "Christianity" is 4,000 people ahead. Bad science and bad theology
>aside. I think most folks would agree that 4,000 people ahead is worth
>having an ICR around.
Not so fast stranger. You need to account for those who think the Bible
can't be true because they think the Bible disavows an old earth and
evolution because YEC's told them so. This is a quote from Duane Gish:
"It is this author's belief that a sound Biblical exegesis
requires the acceptance of the catastrophist-recent creation
interpretation of earth history. If this interpretation is
accepted, the evolution model, of course, becomes inconceivable."
What escapes those who stand on such declarations is that the reverse is
also authorized. If you reject their interpretation of earth history, as
nearly every scientist does, then evolution becomes conceivable; and since
a "sound Biblical exegesis" is part of the same package, the Bible bears the
brunt as the source of those shenanigans.
My gut feeling is that more people shun Christianity from their scientific
or academic expertise than are attracted out of ignorance.
Dick Fischer
THE ORIGINS SOLUTION
http://www.orisol.com