George wrote: "The argument I tried to make was not based on the claim
that ICR is fraudulent - at least not directly. They invited (at least
as I read what you posted) the participation of "cousins." If that is
correct, & if "cousins" be used in a broad sense ("Anyone more
collaterally related more distantly than a brother or sister" in my old
Webster's 2d) then members of other species are our cousins.
Is this a stretch? Sure. Does that bother me? In view of the nature of
ICR, not much."
The words "In view of the nature of ICR" still suggests the argument is
"since ICR is fraudulent then messing with their work is ethically OK."
Which I still cannot agree with, tantalizing as it appears. Maybe I still
remember some late night bull sessions with Duane Gish (1988) and my
friendship with him. I could not do that to a friend, no matter how wrong
I think him to be.
George also wrote: "Perhaps if ICR can be made to look laughable (i.e.,
not just laughed at but deserving of laughter) then some naive Christians
will be warned away from it. Again it's important to make a distinction
between the hard-core YEC cadres who probably will never in this life
waken from their delusions & conservative Christians who are susceptible
to YEC but not wedded to it. We
should try not to offend the latter but should not enable the former. If
we can convince people that they shouldn't be taken seriously, we
should."
That's a different argument, of course. It suggests that the act of
"messing" can bring about a positive good. I think it is stronger than
the first one. I don't think, however, that it convinces me personally.
That's just me.
Cheers
Burgy
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jun 30 10:36:48 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jun 30 2007 - 10:36:48 EDT