Re: Novel paradigms?

From: Stephen E. Jones (sejones@iinet.net.au)
Date: Wed Apr 19 2000 - 20:29:53 EDT

  • Next message: Tedd Hadley: "Re: the role of sex in evolution"

    Reflectorites

    On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 12:02:22 -0500, Susan Brassfield wrote:

    [...]

    >Thank you for pointing this out! There's a reason that ID is specifically
    >mentioned in some anti-creationism court rulings. It's easy to fool people
    >like Stephen Jones, but a lot tougher to fool a judge that ID is anything
    >but creationism all dressed up in new clothes. They've been forced to dump
    >the 6,000 year old earth and forced to accept "micro" evolution, but by and
    >large ID is nothing but Biblical literalism. Though, for propaganda
    >purposes we are very, very, very careful not to mention that "B" word. I've
    >been lurking in the ASA evolution list archives and I've noticed that there
    >are a lot of Christians there who are appalled at the dishonesty of ID
    >proponents. Can't say I blame them!

    [...]

    Susan seems to be implying that I once was a young-Earth creationist who
    was "forced to dump the 6,000 year old earth"? If that is in fact what she is
    claiming, she is simply wrong. I never was a YEC. Early on in my new
    Christian life I worked out for myself that the Bible does not teach YEC.

    I cover this in my testimony on my web page:

    "The days of Genesis 1 and the pattern of creation

    However, I was still nagged by doubts that the Bible might after all teach
    that the days of Genesis 1 were literal days. So to resolve the issue once
    and for all, I bought a book of Hebrew grammar containing a Hebrew-
    English interlinear translation of the early chapters of Genesis. After
    praying to God that I would accept whatever his Word really said, I sat
    down with a note book and wrote a word-by-word "commentary" on
    Genesis 1. When I was finished I was satisfied that Genesis 1 did not
    require me to believe that the world was created in six literal days, and in
    fact there were strong indications in the text itself that the days were not to
    be understood literally. I also found that the pattern of creation in Genesis
    1 was first God creating the "raw materials" of the universe out of nothing
    (Gen 1:1), and then forming and filling the Earth in successive stages by
    His supernatural words of command, through natural processes, using
    existing materials made in the preceding stages. This supernatural-natural
    pattern of creation most nearly fitted Ramm's "Progressive Creation"
    position, so I adopted the latter as my own position."

    Steve

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
    3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
    Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
    Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 19 2000 - 20:29:15 EDT