From: gordon brown (gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu)
Date: Fri Aug 22 2003 - 11:37:09 EDT
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Hauslein, Patricia L. wrote:
> I've argued for years that this problem is more about bad theology than about bad science. It is therefore the churches who need to stand up to the issue and say somthing. But then it comes down to the general public, churched or not, not having much interest in science, so your basic preacher doesn't see the need to spend any time on the topic?
>
> Patricia Hauslein, Ph.D. Hauslein@StCloudState.edu
> Assoc. Prof. Biology 320.255.3005
> Saint Cloud State University
Getting the preachers to address this issue won't help if the preacher
himself has bad theology, and nowadays many of them do. It is discouraging
to me that so many accept the word of Henry Morris without questioning it
rather than searching the Scriptures. These people would not give any
credence to Ellen White's alleged vision of the Flood if they got it
directly from her writings, but they readily accept it indirectly through
the flood geology of Morris.
I had a very conservative evangelical upbringing during which I never
heard that the Second Law of Thermodynamics did not hold before the Fall,
or that there was a vapor canopy and no rain before the Flood, or that the
Flood was the cause of the earth's geology. Yet, thanks to Morris and his
associates, many today think that this is traditional orthodox Biblical
Christianity that it would be heretical to reject.
Another indication of Morris's influence is that young earth creationists
readily accepted his idea that the earth was 10,000 years old rather than
6000. Shouldn't so-called literalists insist on the smaller figure?
Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Aug 22 2003 - 11:39:21 EDT