Re: [asa] Continued Manipulation of the IPCC Reports

On 4/10/07, Terry M. Gray <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu> wrote:
>
> Rich,
>
> I have to say that there's very little here (affirmations/denials 1-6
> and specific actions 1-6) that I disagree with. In fact, I think if
> you take out the rejection of evolution in the specific actions, at
> first glance, I don't think there's anything here I disagree with.
>
> Affirmations/denials 7-19 and the rest of the document, of course,
> are a different matter. It continually amazes me that there can be so
> much agreement on the foundations and so much divergence elsewhere.
>
> TG

Same here and it's why I presented it without commentary. The core
principles are for the most part non-controversial at least for
evangelicals. What I do think is happening is non-necessary conclusions are
drawn from those principles that lead both to YEC and anti-environmentalism.
I can see denying those principles would lead to the conclusion that we
aren't orthodox Christians and why given the non sequiter they conclude we
are. In summary:

good foundation + non sequiter + modus tolens = unnecessary conflict

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Apr 10 17:27:57 2007