Re: The YEC's have won

----- Original Message -----
From: "John and Carol Burgeson" <burgytwo@juno.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 10:50 AM
Subject: The YEC's have won

>>> I don't underestimate the seriousness of the YEC problem but
> "consolidate their victory" language is counterproductive - besides being
> untrue. >>
>
> Why is it counterproductive to say what is so clearly a fact?

I don't consider "What I tell you three times is true" a valid form of
proof.

>>> (If it were correct, YEC stuff would be legally taught as science
> in public schools, which is not the case.)>>
>
> Watch this space. That, too, will happen. It is part of their "mopping
> up."

"My argument is correct because it will turn out to be correct" - a logical
fallacy so obvious that Aristotle didn't even bother to note it.

>>> Among other things, such language is likely to encourage a lot of
> ordinary Christians to cave in to YECism who might not otherwise do so.>>
>
> I visualize Adolph saying much the same thing in late 1944 as the Allies
> advanced.

Or Winston saying the same thing in 1940 to those who thought Adolf had won.

> It may take another 50 years, George. But delaying actions are no more
> than that.

Always a good idea to date the fulfillment of your prophecies well after
those involved in the debate are likely to be dead.

>>> I suggest that if NBC seems to view AiG favorably, or
> even if it fails to ask their reps some challenging questions, people
> should
> call, email or write NBC, identify themselves as Christians (that's
> important) and, if appropriate, scientists, and tell them in no uncertain
>
> terms that AiG's claims are absurd. (That would, of course, be a waste
> of
> time if the YECs were in fact already victorious.)>>
>
> Yes. It would be a waste of time. Better to go out and smell the roses.

I'm usually not very happy about the saying "If you aren't part of the
solution, you're part of the problem." (Too often it means, "If you don't
agree with the solution I propose, you're part of the problem.") But in
this case it's valid.

> Cahrles wrote: "What victory have the YECs had recently anyway? I'm not
> sure what you
> are referring to, Burgy."
>
> Several things, Charles.
>
> 1. The YECs have won a permanent place in one of our political parties,
> and, as such, are going to have an every increasing say in the American
> culture.

For a long time - in fact up to the election of 1864 - the legitimacy of
slavery had a permanent place in one of our political parties. In just a
bit over a year after that election, the 13th Amendment was ratified.

> 2. The YECs have won legitimacy as a Christian sect, and there is now no
> possibility of reason to counteract them.

> 3. The YECs have permanently co-opted evangelical Christianity, and, as
> the mainstream denominations fade away, will eventually "become"
> Christianity. Splinter movements will exist; they will be small.
> Megachurches like that of James Kennedy will rule.

Again this is just the "What I tell you three times is true" argument, given
spurious validity by use of a term which is pure guesswork on your part,
"permanent." Please tell us where you got the crystal ball that enables you
to peer into the far future.

> I think the turning point for all this passed last year. I don't see any
> possibility now to turn the tide.

In '64 LBJ won a "consensus" & 4 years later was afarid to run again. In
November '72 Nixon was on top of the world in 3 years later was out on his
ear.
You vastly overestimate the permanence of such things.

& you have failed to see what a number of commentators have pointed out -
that the Bush administration succeeded in getting the votes of conservative
Christians by pushing "values" but has no intention of expending its
political capital by going to the mat for those issues. They've made it
clear that they're not going to make a big push for a marriage amendment or
for serious limitation of abortion, & in fact their recent political
grandstanding on the Schiavo issue is a cheap way of currying favor with the
fundamentalist constituency to disguise the fact that they aren't going to
do anything about those more substantive issues. "Let them eat rhetoric."
The same thing is likely to occur with the anti-evolution agenda. GWB,
Cheney et al may not like evolution but they're not going to (figuratively)
kill & die to try to get YEC into 9th grade science classes.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Fri Mar 25 22:17:57 2005