Re: RATE Vol. II

The problem you mention in #5 below may be somewhat answered by your
#4. The purpose wouldn't be to declare to the world that 'NOW we
finally agree that yes, the earth must be old.' The purpose, as I
understand your statements below, is proposed to be directed at
evangelicals with the message that not only have many Christians long
accepted old earth chronologies, but that the 'YE' part of YEC is really
a ball and chain for the message of Christ, and that some are wanting to
get serious about purging this almost certain falsehood from its place
among eternal truths.

I'm just in the middle of 'The Creationists' by Numbers (thanks for
recommending it -- several of you did). And one danger he recounts in
young (creationist) groups trying to move towards a more agressive and
unified front is that it tends to bring out the differences as members
dicker about what that unified front should be. I'm not saying that you
(we) shouldn't pursue this -- maybe it's time. And simply stating a
committment to an earth magnitudes more ancient than 6000 yrs without
getting much more specific is probably a pretty safe thing in this
group. But if the history I'm reading by R. Numbers is any indicator
--- then beware the enthusiasm towards political or religious
activism. A motivation to declare just one simple thing is rarely
satisfied to let the matter rest there -- especially if they taste some
success. It will be seen as a wedge in a door by those critically
watching, and they will want to know what all lies behind this door that
we so desire for them to leave ajar.

--merv

George Murphy wrote:

> Some further comments on a possible ASA statement against young earth
> claims:
>
> 1) The distinction that some have made between an organizational
> position & a membership requirement is important. I don't think we
> should limit membership to those who accept an old earth. There is
> precedent for this - I'm know that there are members of the American
> Physical Society who don't accept the organization's official
> statement on the teaching of evolution.
>
> 2) I think Dick's statement is a good start. But we need to think
> carefully about how such a position statement should be phrased, & not
> rush into it.
>
> 3) One question is whether we should refer just to an old _earth_ or
> an old _universe_. OTOH one of the cleanest results of radioactive
> dating (U235/U238 ratio) actually has to do with the age of the
> material from which the solar system formed, > 6.5 Gyr, rather than
> the age of the earth itself. OTOH while we now have a fairly certain
> estimate of the time, ~14 GYr, since beginning of cosmic expansion,
> talking about "the age of the universe" is a little tricky for several
> reasons.
>
> 4) There is little point in making such a statement unless the
> organization is willing to promote it strongly among conservative
> Christians.
>
> 5) To be fair, there's a possibility that such a statement could have
> a backlash from non-Christians in the media: "See how enlightened
> these Christian scientists are - they've just caught on to something
> that everyone else has known for a couple of centuries!"
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
Received on Sun May 21 22:35:04 2006