Who said I am an evolutionist? I was simply pointing out that geology has a
non-evolutionary basis and thus those who talk about "evolutionary geology"
are totally wrong and using smear tactics show that geology is evol
(pronounced evil). People who say this are wrong whether they have a Ph D or
not.
Allen Roy is right to say that the early geologists were not Creationist in
the YEC sense, but then from 1650 hardly anyone was as the majority of
Christians adopted an earklier version of the Gap theory allowing more time
than the YECs would. Probably no more than 5-10 % of Christians who put pen
to paper from 1650 - 1860 were YEC. In England it may have gone up to 20% in
the 1820s and 1830s This was the substance of my paper at the ASA conference
at Gordon in August 2000 and a chapter in a book "The Discovery of Time" due
out in the spring.
The question YECs need to ask themselves is why were Evangelicals so rarely
YEC until the aftermath of the Genesis Flood in 1961?
I could develop and critique his ideas of naturalism, it is remarkable how
such anti-evolutionists such as Sedgwick, Buckland and others unwittingly
absorbed such evolutionary ideas. The ideas of vast geological ages
considerably pre-date and adoption of evolution or uniformitarianism.
That will do for tonight
Michael Roberts
P.S. How many YECs can you name in 1860? Can you exceed my list of 6?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Allen Roy" <allenroy@peoplepc.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: Creation Ex Nihilio and other journals
> From: M.B.Roberts <topper@robertschirk.u-net.com>
> > When people talk about "evolutionary geology " like this I know they
know
> > nothing about geology and are only dismissing vast ages of geology by
> using
> > an evolutionary smear tactic.
>
> This is one of the most arogent and missinformed statment that can be made
> by Evolutionists. This idea that people are Creationists only because
they
> are uneducated. All that needs to be done is to educate everyone and no
one
> would be a Creationist. This is patently wrong and based on total lack of
> understanding of the YEC position. The internet is full of papers which
> discredit this idea. A simple search will find them.
>
> >
> > A little familarity with how the discovery of geological time and the
> > geological column would help. basically most early geologists who gave
us
> > our geolgy were anti-evolutionary and evolution did not come into their
> > thinking.
>
> The early geologists were "Creationists" only in some vague definition of
> the term. Today, they would not be called Creationist and especially not
> YEC. Their beliefs would place them on most friendly terms with those of
> the ASAnet and unfriendly terms with Creationary groups such as ICR, CRS
and
> AiG. Today, Creationists recognize that the underlying assumptions of
> naturalism/materialism, which early Christian geologists accepted
> uncritically or unknowingly, are invalid and anti-Biblical in a truly
> Creationary philosophy. The major belief differences between YECs and
the
> early Christian geologists makes it impossible to compare them. The early
> Christian geologists bought into vast ages because they already had bought
> into the philosopical assumptions of naturalism/materialism and its basic
> uniformitarian corollary even if not fully developed until later. YEC's,
> beginning with Price, have recognized the fallacy of allowing naturalism
any
> part in scientific interpretation of the geologic sciences. This is where
> the true difference between Evolutionists and Creationists lies.
Naturalism
> leads to Evolutionism. Creation leads to Creationism.
>
> Allen
> Member MENSA
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 06 2001 - 15:06:20 EST