>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v25n2_bullet.asp
>It appears that their rhetoric is becoming fashionably more advanced and appears to address some of the issues many have with them. If they indeed begin to abandon more of the whimsical and far fetched arguments and also encourage their 34,000 daily visitors to do so also, this won't hurt anyone.
> It takes some guts to put out their (for everyone to recognize, not just experts) that plenty of their previous arguments were bogus or incorrect.<
I fear that "appears" and "if" must be emphasized above. The essay in question is not especially honest in its retractions. It claims that they are based on the consideration of new evidence by young-earthers, when in fact the evidence has been available all along and repeatedly pointed out by old-earthers. (For particular egregiousness, compare the discussion of moon dust in Van Till et al., Science Held Hostage, with the AiG retraction.)
It's not entirely clear how much effort they are putting into discouraging the use of the arguments that they admit are wrong. Creation science is a very grassroots movement that has cultivated a disregard for contrary evidence, so even a vigorous effort to suppress bad arguments would be slow to make a mark. However, the continued use of some of these arguments by Answers in Genesis-affiliated speakers after AiG admits that they are invalid suggests that they are not doing a very good job of discouraging their use.
The fundamental failing is that I do not see any trend to doing a better job with the scientific arguments that they still endorse.
> Regardless, the most effective tool for an untrained layman isn't to memorize a series of "science facts" to debate professor so and so. It is really to challenge their worldview and get them considering the truth of the cross.<
A very good point. Professor so and so is probably reasonably knowledgeable about science, certainly more knowledgeable than someone who gets his "facts" from standard creation science, but there's a good chance that he does not know much about worldviews or Christianity. Talk about what you know.
> Regardless if you believe the earth is young or old, that is a secondary issue to Christ, so let's focus on that!<
Claiming otherwise is in fact heresy, like the teaching of the Judaizers that Paul opposed. It says that Jesus is not enough.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
Received on Mon Dec 29 13:59:21 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 29 2003 - 13:59:22 EST