RE: RATE Vol. II

And when the suggestion was made that ASA publicly repudiate YEC, the
reason we don't was what again?
 
Dick Fischer
Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
 <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org> www.genesisproclaimed.org
 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Randy Isaac
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 9:22 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: RATE Vol. II
 
Joel Duff wrote:

I think we may look back at the publication of this work as a watershed
moment in the history of creation science movement. It seems we have
here the clearest expression of something that seems to have been
inevitable; the admission that evidence (in this case radioctive decay)
is most simply interpreted as supportive of an old earth. So often I
hear how "all the evidence" points to a young earth but now we see even
more clearly that only when one presumes a young earth does any of the
evidence support a young earth though even that is highly debatable.

It seems that by openly admitting that the evidence supports an old
earth if the Scriptures aren't consulted it calls into question the
wisdom of creation scientists using creation as a tool of evangelism.
Haven't they wanted to be able to say: look at this evidence of the
Flood and a young earth, now believe the Bible. If the evidence without
an a priori Biblical position doesn't say the earth is young how can
they contiue to use young earth studies as an evangelistic tool?
 
I had similar visions but I seriously doubt whether it will turn out
that way. Despite the clear statements in the summary chapter of the
unsolved problems, the final paragraph continues to assert that the
groundbreaking new results once again reaffirm the validity of the
Bible. Knowing the right answer ahead of time provides confidence that
the remaining unsolved problems will be solved. Conferences and books
and videos proclaim the result of RATE as showing the validity of the
young-earth position. Statements that the RATE scientists published in
the $79.99 version of the 800 page technical report won't be read by
many people in the pews. They will rely on the translation provided in
the "Thousands...Not Billions" book which has the conclusion right in
the title. No need to read further.
 
Sadly,
 
Randy
Received on Sun May 21 10:53:17 2006