Re: I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG

There are some posts not worth replying to. This is one. One would have to
be a wally to say Glenn and I take a no prisoners approach

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "wallyshoes" <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG

> So far, Glenn Morton, Dick Fischer and Michael Roberts (no surprise) have
posted
> that they disagree and that we must continues with aggressive anti YEC
> approaches. Let me take this notion to task.
>
> I know a number of Christians who do not accept evolution but who have "no
> problem" with those Christians who do. In fact they would not even mind a
class
> with teaches that there are various viewpoints and a book like "God Did It
But
> How" would be acceptable. So let's say that I start a class like that:
>
> I start the class and handout class material consisting of articles and
posts
> by Glenn, Dick and Michael. I explain that the class' young earth, anti
> evolution views are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG and that they should listen up.
"What
> about the Bible" they ask? Oh well the above authors have 3 different
views of
> the OT (and some people think that they are laughable) but that is
irrelevant.
> What maters is that the class' "world view" view is WRONG because it does
not
> conform to current scientific views.
>
> Should I be surprised when nobody shows up for the next class? Should I
wonder
> why Joe Sebeny has been invited to make a presentation to the
congregation?
>
> Glenn (only 2 "n"s), Dick and Michael would insist upon the "take no
prisoners
> approach". The man in the pew must be taught to conform with what they say
> science is and there must be no two ways about it. (I wonder what their
position
> is on the LEC letter that Jack haas sent out. Surely they could not
support this
> with their own hard earned money.) Why, I wonder, do they not see how
> counterproductive that strategy is? That is why I suggested DeBono. Good
> reasoning does not make such errors. (IMO)
>
> Charitable contributions, like many other things, is a zero sum game. Is
ASA a
> worthwhile effort? Is it just a dominantly incestuous group with a
commitment to
> kill a young earth philosophy at any cost to the Christian community --
instead
> of attempting to either dialog or attack the LEADERS in the ICR, etc.?
>
> Contrary views are always solicited but I would truly love to hear from
the
> "other side" also (if there is one on this list).
>
>
>
> 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)
> ===================================
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Sat Dec 27 13:04:28 2003