From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Wed Nov 19 2003 - 17:53:14 EST
In many ways a list like this is not a good place to discuss issues like
this which need a depth of treatment rather than quick responses in which
the writer tries to give a salient point but cant give the time needed for a
proper answer.
I have heard Ted give a paper on part of his book and it was excellent and I
suspect his book will be of a similar standard.
What we seem to be doing is to discuss a serious topic in minimal time with
few words. That results in a superficiality.
However I hope that it is clear that quick slick answers may persuade for a
time but not in the end.
The fact is that most of our chosen Christian affiliation have skeletons in
the cupboard whether on racism or anything else. A member of the SBC will
not like to be reminded of 1845 and a missionary minded Church of England
member like me does not want to remember a pre-war Bishop of Hong Kong who
saw his white clergy in his house and the Chinese in the cathedral vestry.
Recently I discovered that Dean Inge of St Paul's London a liberal Christian
was in favour of eugenics. However pro-evolution Christians seem to have got
rid of racism before leading YECs like Morris, so YECs should not try to
occupy the high moral ground as both ICR and AIG do.
Historical questions are usually very complex.
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sarah Berel-Harrop" <sec@hal-pc.org>
To: <TDavis@messiah.edu>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: Racism and YEC (WAS:Four items of possible controversy)
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 13:44:54 -0500
> "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >Ted replies: Rich, I'm not trying to be difficult or to insult you.
> > I've
> >done my best to explain my point, if you don't see it, then perhaps I
> >haven't explained it carefully enough. But I don't know how to be
> >clearer.
> >Perhaps someone else can help here? I have nothing further to say,
> >myself.
>
> Ted,
>
> I guess my concern is that you appear to be describing the racism
> of the scientists, which is fair enough, and then placing creationists
> as a foil (Wm Jennings Bryan, for example). Is this a complete
> picture? Were the creationists of that time in lock-step
> progressive and non-racist? What years are you talking about?
> If you are in the first quarter of the twentieth century, I
> don't see how you can exclude the Klan, for example. The
> point being that given a pervasively racist society, people
> holding different worldviews may come to the same conclusions
> about race but using different rationales. You will have
> exceptions, and we all would hope that the exceptions will
> eventually become the rule. It could be I misunderstand what
> you are trying to say with your book.
>
> I think you this relates as well to your comment about
> 'social darwinism' being a reason for modern creationist
> rejection of evolution. This is a bit curious. I realize
> there is that perception, but most creationists (social
> conservatives) also put an extraordinary amount of faith
> in laissez-faire free-marketism, some to such a degree
> that it is quite similar to social darwinism. They
> certainly cannot be said to reject Smith's mechanisms
> as they relate to the economy, possibly I misread that
> post as well.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Nov 19 2003 - 17:55:05 EST