I think one can conceptually differentiate the scientific and theological positions, by which I mean only that the claim "the earth is less than 10,000 years old" is clearly different from the claim "early Genesis must be interpreted as starightforwardly and literally as possible."
This latter claim may lead to the former, but it is not the same as the former. Hence, Young-Earth Creationism and Biblical Literalism are two different -- logically related, but still logically distinct -- beasts.
-----Original Message-----
From: Oliver Beck [SMTP:Oliver.Beck@studbox.uni-stuttgart.de]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 1997 4:10 am
To: John E. Rylander
Cc: 'Calvin Evolution Reflector'
Subject: Re: "YEC" v. "Literal Creationism"
On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, John E. Rylander wrote:
> (2) "Literal creationism" seems to -me- a poor choice for a
scientific discussion for two reasons:
The problem is that in this issue you cannot clearly separate
scientific from 'theological' positions. Most YECs believe in a
young earth not because the have better theories to explain the
facts of geology, but because they believe the bible says so.
Many Christian people defending an old earth hold the two-revelation
view that the scientific interpretations of creation are equal to the
'theological' interpretation of the Scriptures. This is also a
theological position and shows that the scientific positions
depend at least inparts on the 'theological' position.
Oliver