Re: Pejudice? Cowardice? Re: A Peace Proposal

I'm not condemning an entire group of believers, just a specific
individual who intentionally misleads an entire group of believers. It
seems that Glenn, Michael, Burgy, et.al. have made it pretty clear that
the problem is with the leaders and promulgators of the YEC movements.
There's nothing wrong with using "YEC" either -- there needs to be a
general term referring to that particular Weltanschauung. Is "Quick
Creationist" any better?

Anyway, I don't know what you thought of my Paluxy anecdote, but I now
feel goaded into revealing the speaker's identity. It's in fact Donald
DeYoung, Ph.D. Here's a web page of info on found through Google:
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/deyoung-db.html

I just I really don't understand the source of your ire. Seems like we
having a fairly reasonable discussion here.

Roger

> The problem as I see it is that everyone is "thinking of" specific
> individuals
> and then condemns an entire group of believers by using the word "YEC".
> Someone
> recently noted that nearly 50% of all Christians are YECs. Do you guys
> really
> want to slam the entire group?
>
> Someone recently referred to my church as "the Unitarian Church of
> Christians"
> in this area. The reason is that all manner of Christians coexist at this
> church
> and we do NOT fight with each other. There is no need to do so. We focus
> on
> Jesus Christ, not the theology of the other person wrt the OT.
>
> When I found some books by Morris and his band of pseudo scientists in the
> library, I complained to the hierarchy of the church and have made
> progress in
> elimination of books that are scientifically bogus. That is not the same
> thing
> as attacking an entire group of Christians for their theology.
>
> What amazes and dismays me is the lack of identification of the specific
> group
> of individuals about whom you are all talking. Are you *afraid* to
> identify
> them? Is it a universal *prejudice*? How would you all feel if others
> attacked
> Arabs in general because of the actions of groups of terrorists?
>
> If you are angry because of YECs , then let me say that I am angry because
> of
> your attacks on them without identifying the small minority of scientific
> charlatans that you really mean.
>
> And I do NOT believe that Glenn is justified in slamming YECs just because
> of
> his experience with a select group. How about identifying the people of
> whom you
> speak and criticize them BY NAME instead of by a category that includes a
> lot
> of sensible people. If afraid to identify the person, at least say the ICR
> or
> the AiG instead of the general term of YECs.
>
> Have I said this often enough? I think not because all the unjust and
> unfair
> comments still continue. So I will continue to complain about this
> unChristian
> (IMHO) behavior.
>
> AND HEAR THIS WELL: Nobody on this list has any good scientific (non
> philosophical) answer to those Christians who think that the earth was
> created
> less than 10,000 years ago with the history intact. There is absolutely no
> way
> to scientifically refute this (IMO) ---- but hostile criticism still spews
> forth.
>
> Walt
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael Roberts wrote:
>
>> A interesting three responses from Wally George and Glenn.
>>
>> Yes George I Was thinking of hard core YEC writers - all your standard
>> ones
>> from US, UK and Oz who seem pathologically incapable of being upright
>> and
>> fair and honest. I do not envy them on the Day of Judgement.
>>
>> I think many YEC followers are because they do not know of any better
>> arguments and think Wise and Austin a just a few of many YEC geologists
>> and
>> that because they have put a poster up at a geophysics conference they
>> must
>> be good. They are like some students I taught at Wheaton, whom another
>> student said they and she were brainwashed. As Glenn says they are not
>> without blame
>>
>> Glenn is to the point but Wally needs to consider their whole approach
>> of
>> distortion and character assassination. If that is in any way Christian
>> then
>> I am an atheist and proud of it. (and Socrates will remember that ands
>> use
>> it against me!)
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> Original Message -----
>> From: "wallyshoes" <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>> To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
>> Cc: "John W Burgeson" <jwburgeson@juno.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 1:41 AM
>> Subject: Re: A Peace Proposal
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Michael Roberts wrote:
>> >
>> > > In a way I agree with Burgy's peace proposal but sadly one or two
>> things
>> are
>> > > needed first.
>> > >
>> > > 1) One should always take someone else's faith commitment at face
>> value
>> and
>> > > not charge them with being liberal or fundamentalist with out very
>> good
>> > > reason.
>> > > Thr worst offenders are those who refer to others as "supposed
>> evangelicals"
>> > > or some similar phrase. On the theology web Socrates rubbishes Hugh
>> Ross
>> and
>> > > his fellow AIGer Mortenson is obnoxious about Dave Young "who has
>> mislead
>> > > many".
>> > > There is also a difference between rubbishing and disagreeing. I
>> disagree
>> > > with A on homosexuality and B on the person of Christ and am
>> prepared to
>> > > argue with them but not rubbish them. (But I cant resist humour
>> which
>> > > doesn't always go down!)
>> > > 2) A rigorous honesty in representing the case of someone else. I
>> fear
>> that
>> > > in some cases winning the argument is more important than being
>> honest.
>> > > By being honest I do not mean being 100% accurate as we all make
>> mistakes or
>> > > are in error, but not distorting either wilfully or negligently.
>> > > I have read posts on this listserve which I consider to be seriously
>> in
>> > > error, but the person made them in absolute honesty and integrity.
>> > > Unfortunately I cannot say that about most YEC writing. That means
>> that
>> even
>> > > a truce is well nigh impossible-
>> > >
>> > > Surely no Christian could object to this
>> >
>> > I am one who does!
>> >
>> > VERY STRONGLY !!
>> >
>> > I think that many of them have every bit as much integrity as you do,
>> Michael.
>> >
>> > Walt
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ===================================
>> > Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>> >
>> > In any consistent theory, there must
>> > exist true but not provable statements.
>> > (Godel's Theorem)
>> >
>> > You can only find the truth with logic
>> > If you have already found the truth
>> > without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
>> > ===================================
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
> --
> ===================================
> Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>
> In any consistent theory, there must
> exist true but not provable statements.
> (Godel's Theorem)
>
> You can only find the truth with logic
> If you have already found the truth
> without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
> ===================================
>
>
>
>

-- 
Roger G. Olson, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Mathematics and Environmental Science
Saint Joseph's College
Rensselaer, IN 47978
(219) 866-6295