Allen Roy (allenroy@peoplepc.com) wrote:
>From: Michael Roberts <topper@robertschirk.u-net.com>
...
>>I would suggest that all YECs go through all YEC publications and correct
>>the misquotations therein starting with the Genesis Flood by Morris and
>>Whitcomb. I think that would sort out many of the problems and heat in
>>the Creation/Evolution debate.
>>
>>I look forward to the 2nd edit of the Genesis Flood with no misquotations
>I mentioned your thoughts to some friends of mine. We agree that
>misquotation is unacceptable. And we would be willing to study up on and
>check out each of the quotes from the Genesis Flood which are considered
>to be misquotations. Perhaps we can start with chaper 1 and work our way
>through the book. I do not have a copy of the book, but I'm certrain an
>among us we will have access to the book. It may be that someone has a web
>site which deals with this topic and that can be a useful resource.
An update to the Genesis Flood would, in addition to the problem of
misquotes, need to address the major revolution in Geology that occurred
during and after 1960's. A large number of the quotes that actually do
represent the true thoughts and sentiments of the author deal with valid
complaints against the 'Geosynclinal Theory' of mountain building. In the
late 1950's when Morris & Whitcomb were collecting material for this book,
the Geosynclinal Theory was being shown to be inadequate for explaining a
lot of geological features. There was discontent in the field of geology
and these concerns were openly published -- thus an abundance of quotes.
And, due in part to this discontent, the Genesis Flood was considered by
a number of people (as Michael Roberts confessed) as "... a powerful
argument though it went against all my geology." However, in the mid-60's
and throughout the 70's the Geosynclinal Theory was completely replaced by
the Plate Tectonics Theory. This was an entire paradigm shift for
Geology. A huge amount of previously reported problems with 'modern
geology' were suddenly explained by the new Theory.
I read the Genesis Flood in the late 1970's just after getting a BS in
geology. I was skeptical (because it was the second creationist book that
I had read) but still found it disturbing to my geology background -- in
the early 70's we had learned both theories in school and Plate Tectonics
was just beginning to appear in the college textbooks. I re-read the
Genesis Flood last summer for the first time since the 70's. As I read, I
annotated my copy with comments. There were a few quotes that I wanted to
see if they were misquotes. However, a larger number of quotes (whether
accurate or not) could be dismissed as simply "Pre-Plate Tectonics"
problems -- the problem of that day was now easily explained by features
of the Plate Tectonic theory.
I think that if you removed the misquotes and the problems with
Geosynclinal Theory geology that are now explained by Plate Tectonics,
the Genesis Flood would be reduced to little more than the same arguments
found in any YEC tract from the 1950's -- like Morris' "The Bible
and Modern Science".
Steve
[Opinions expressed herein are my own and are not to be attributed to
my employer]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 06 2002 - 09:43:34 EST