responses to "scientifically humble" YEC

Craig Rusbult (rusbult@vms2.macc.wisc.edu)
Sun, 25 Jul 1999 13:30:44 -0500

In the 1999 book "Three Views on Creation and Evolution," Paul Nelson
and John Mark Reynolds write a chapter on young-earth creationism, in
which they say, "Recent creationists should humbly agree that their
view is, at the moment, implausible on purely scientific grounds."

What have been responses to this, by YECs and by others?
As with my request for ID critiques, web-pages and ASA archives
would be especially useful -- or at least immediately useful. :<)

Personally, I'm impressed. Their humility inspired me to revise
two parts of my overviews, mainly my description of "harmonization",
which now reads:
"YECs begin with a firm commitment to young-earth theology based on
their interpretation of the Bible, and then adjust their science as
necessary, but this does not produce satisfactory science. Or a YEC
might recognize the scientific deficiencies, and decide to accept these
temporarily (hoping that with further development the YEC-science will
improve and become more satisfactory) in order to achieve the perceived
theological benefits of a young-earth view."
The first sentence is classical YEC (by Henry Morris,...); the second
sentence was recently added to describe the views of Paul and John Mark.

Craig Rusbult