Re: Kerkut

Jack Syme wrote:

>The things you claim here I would agree with, homo sapiens being connected
>to the phyletic tree of life, but I would call myself a day age
>creationist. Mainly in the sense of saying I think that this fits with
>what the bible says, I dont really mean to imply anything about evolution
>in that.
>
>But, imo, the main problem, like I said before, is the age of the
>Earth. I think that there is more biblical evidence to support their
>views, than any other time that the Bible and science clashed in the past,
>(flat earth, heliocentrism), and now (denying evolution.) But it is the
>denial of the Old Earth, when there is so much science around that
>contradicts that view, that is making the evangelical world look bad, and
>imo is an embarrassment.

I agree. IMO, recognizing the age of the earth puts us on the path to
discovery. I would like to see us reach the end. If it is only earth age
that bothers you then Ross is as good as Eugenie Scott. My aims go beyond
that.

>So as far as apologetics goes who cares about how God created?

Textbook committees for one. Pastors for another. I can think of a few.

> The scientist will point to evolution and say, there is no God it was
> all chance, and the Christian will say well, maybe God did it that way,
> or might even say that the scientist is a fool, but honestly would have
> no other better explanation. But the YEC emphatically says the Earth is
> young, the Bible says so, and everyone else looks at him, scoffs, and
> says, well what other nonsense is in that book?

Again, I agree wholeheartedly. But there is no apologetic, other than the
one I hold to and have promoted in this forum, that allows for a literal
approach to Genesis, plus gives full credibility to the latest discoveries
of modern science. "Literal" is what fundamentalist Christians love. Only
YEC has given it to them.

We can argue that Genesis is allegory, or tradition, or mythology, or
poetry until we are blue in the face, and we are not going to dent YEC
because they think (and I think) it is intended to be taken literally as a
historical account. Only they think they have to turn science on its head
in order to align with their outdated interpretation. I try to bring
interpretation up to date using the relevant history of Mesopotamia and -
voila - everything works!

Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
Received on Fri Feb 6 12:37:31 2004