Re: [asa] Two questions...

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 8:40 PM, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
 were. They also ignore the fact that the moon is a light as much as the
> sun is, so it cannot merely reflect sunlight. The change in meaning is so
> familiar that Hayworth does not recognize it as a change.

I think you've understood exactly the opposite of what I intended to
convey. You are describing concordist versions of YEC (i.e., examples
of trying to make the biblical descriptions make sense
scientifically). What I said was that straightforward YECs (by which I
meant those unadulterated YECs who simply believe in 6-day creation on
biblical grounds only, and don't care that the scientific evidence
doesn't support it -- perhaps appealing to the appearance of age) are
internally consistent theologically. I realize that the vast majority
of passionate YECs are in fact extremely concordist, too. Sorry if
that distinction was not clear in my original comment. My point was
that it is concordism that is the problem (not specifically whether it
is of an OEC or YEC variety). There is a version of YEC that doesn't
require concordism (i.e., appearance of age YEC), but there is not to
my knowledge any version of OEC that does not depend heavily on
concordism.

Doug

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Feb 9 23:09:49 2009