Actually I will stay by my personal opinion of this. The statement was
made against a backdrop of an acknowledgement that their view had no data
supporting it, indeed, they even acknowledge that the data is against them:
"Natural science at the moment seems to overwhelmingly point to an old
cosmos. Though creationist scientists have suggested some evidence for a
recent cosmos, none are widely accepted as true. It is safe to say that
most recent creationists are motivated by religious concerns." Paul Nelson
and John Mark Reynolds, "Young Earth Creationism," in J. P. Moreland and
John Mark Reynolds, editors, Three Views on Creation and Evolution, (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), p. 49
And consider this statement:
"As we shall argue later, recent creationism is an attempt to reinterpret
the data, not to deny their existence or importance. As it is now
interpreted, the data are mostly against us. Well and good. We take this
seriously. Eventually failure to deal with that data in a recent
creationist scientific theory would be sufficient reason to give up the
project." Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds, "Young Earth Creationism," in
J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds, editors, Three Views on Creation and
Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), p. 51
I would ask Mssrs. Nelson and Reynolds, when will enough time have passed
for YECs to give up the project? As of today, 169 years have passed since
the publication of Lyell's Principles of Geology which showed the world the
evidence for an old earth. YECs still can't explain the geologic data. One
hundred and 40 years have passed since Darwin published and the YECs still
have no definition of a baramin that works. They also have no explanation
for the nested hierarchies in the biological realm.
When Paul and John Mark are 100 years old and on their death bed, is this
enough time to have passed for them to give up their project? They have an
open-ended checking account on the future. They draw upon it anytime that
they can't explain something or anytime the data goes against them.
Then they turn around and say that the reason that TEs accept TE is that
they can't see beyond their training. Switch and bait. Now we won't talk
about the evidence that goes against YEC, just the blindness of the TEs.
What is so very, very sad is the hypocrisy of this statement. While
acknowledging that the data goes against them, instead of acknowledging
that TEs are TEs because the data is in favor of evolution and an old
universe, they try to blame the problem on the TEs rather than on the YEC
failure to explain the data. This is a classic case of avoiding
responsibility. If they were responsible, they would put forth a
hypothesis which could successfully deal with the data they admit they
can't explain!
And then they offer the lamest of reasons to be a YEC:
"The recent creationists may fail, but the effort itself will be
intellectually interesting." Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds, "Young
Earth Creationism," in J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds, editors,
Three Views on Creation and Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), p. 50
So we are supposed to invest such time in an intellectual lark, that
admittedly ignores the evidence? And then we are supposed to say that this
failed lark, which is opposed by every piece of observational data is what
we should be engaged in because it supports the very Word of God. Sorry
Burgy, I find this all very, very sad, hypocritic and blind.
>
>I would not agree with their statement, as it is far too inclusive. That
>it does describe SOME TEs seems most reasonable, however.
>
>Among those it does NOT describe (IMHO) are George Murphy and Howard Van
>Til.
>
>Does it describe Glenn Morton? I don't know. Possibly. You & I have
>engaged in enough "chatter" over the past several years to lead me to
>consider it a possibility.
This comment amuses me. In fact it is laughable. To claim that I can't see
beyond my training is ridiculous on the very face of it. I, who was a
publishing young-earth creationist (20+ items for the CRSQ, one YEC book of
my own, and one ghost-written for Josh McDowell. If I couldn't see beyond
my training, I would never have changed sides. I changed sides because I
finally saw what the YECs were doing to the Bible.
>
>Does it, with TE changed to PC, describe me? Possibly.
>
>We are all fallible humans.
YEs we are all fallible humans. But I have evidence that I am willing to
change when presented with new evidence. Do Paul Nelson and John Mark
Reynolds exhibit this ability? Not yet. But I am hopeful that Paul might
change some day. He is far too smart a person to continue to support the
totally unsupportable.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution