We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all truth is God’s truth, that nature is endowed by its Creator with certain unalienable laws, that among these are Newton’s law of gravitation, the four laws of thermodynamics and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. That to observe these laws, the scientific method is instituted among men, deriving its just powers from the consent of the rational. That whenever any form of pseudo-science becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the Evangelical church to alter or to abolish it, and to institute proper methods of observation, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect positively their intellect and faith. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that creation doctrines long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that the Evangelical church is more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right itself by abolishing the Special Creationist form of pseudo-science to which it is accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces an unintelligent design to reduce them under absolute doctrinal despotism, it is its right, it is its duty, to throw off such doctrine, and to provide new guards for its future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these theistic evolutionists; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former creation doctrine. The history of the present Special Creationist movement is a history of repeated spiritual injuries and scientific usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute doctrinal tyranny over Evangelical Christianity. To prove this, let facts be submitted to candid Evangelicals.
Special Creationists have refused their intellectual assent to natural laws, the most wholesome and necessary for scientific advancement.
They have forbidden Evangelical Christian scientists to acknowledge natural laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless “suspended” in their operation till their assent should be obtained; and when so “suspended,” they have utterly neglected to observe them.
They have refused to observe other natural laws for the accommodation of large portions of the Body of Christ, unless those people would relinquish the right of membership in their respective churches, a right inestimable to them and formidable to doctrinal tyrants only.
They have called together pseudo-scientific organizations at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of scientific knowledge, for the sole purpose of fatiguing Evangelical Christians into compliance with their doctrinal measures.
They have dissolved spiritual bonds repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness their invasions on the intellectual rights of Evangelical Christians.
They have refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause many non-Christians to become “elect”; whereby the observational powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to secular scientists at large for their exercise; the Evangelical church remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from within, and convulsions without.
They have endeavored to prevent the population of true science in American public schools; for that purpose obstructing the scientific method for both Christian and non-Christian students; refusing to pass others to encourage their scientific knowledge hither, and lowering the conditions of new appointments to school boards.
They have obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing their assent to recent Supreme Court rulings regarding the teaching of “creation science” in public schools.
They have made judges dependent on their will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
They have erected a multitude of new Special Creationist-sympathetic organizations, and sent hither swarms of lawyers to harass our people, and eat out their brains.
They have kept among us, in times of scientific advancement, fallacy-laden “scientific” textbooks without the consent of our children’s parents.
They have affected to render the Evangelical church independent of and inferior to cultural and moral power.
They have combined with others to subject us to a spiritual jurisdiction foreign to our God-given intellect, and unacknowledged by the laws of nature; giving their assent to their acts of pretended science:
For quartering large quantities of deluded school board officials among us:
For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any intellectual murders which they should commit on the members of the Evangelical church:
For cutting off our children with all parts of the scientific world:
For imposing pseudo-scientific doctrine on us without our consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of using the minds God gave us:
For transporting us past the gates of so-called “orthodoxy” to be tried for pretended offenses:
For abolishing the free system of knowledge exchange in neighboring Evangelical communities, establishing therein an arbitrary church government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same pseudo-scientific doctrine in our churches:
For taking away our ability to think critically, abolishing our most valuable asset, and altering fundamentally the forms of our thought processes:
For suspending our own church memberships, and declaring themselves invested with power to “lord it over us” in all cases whatsoever.
They have abdicated respect here, by declaring us out of God’s favor and waging war against us.
They have plundered our schools, ravaged our courts, burned our copies of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, and destroyed the spiritual lives of our families and friends.
They are at this time transporting large quantities of pseudo-scientific theory to complete the works of intellectual death, spiritual isolation and doctrinal tyranny, already begun with circumstances of ignorance and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the representatives of Christ.
They have constrained our fellow Evangelical Christian scientists taken captive in the laboratory to bear witness against their microscopes, to become the intellectual executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
They have excited academic insurrections against us, and have endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our intellectual frontiers, the merciless secularists, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all religions, sects and churches.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated spiritual injury. Special Creationist doctrine, the character of which is thus marked by every act which may define doctrinal tyranny, is unfit to be the doctrine of a intellectually free people.
Nor have we been wanting in attention to our Special Creationist brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their sympathetic deacons and pastors to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our intellectual emigration and settlement in theistic evolution. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common spiritual bonds to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of academic justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Christian pseudo-scientists, enemies in intellectual war, in spiritual peace friends.
We, therefore, the theistic evolutionist representatives of the Evangelical church, in the Body of Christ, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the cosmos for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of Jesus Christ, solemnly publish and declare, that these united Christians are, and of right ought to be free and independent intellectually; that they are absolved from all allegiance to Special Creationist doctrine, and that all theological connection between them and Special Creationism, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent intellectuals, they have full power to levy doctrinal war, conclude doctrinal peace, contract spiritual alliances, establish intellectual commerce, and to do all other acts and things which Christians may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our intellectual lives, our souls and our sacred honor.
Ooh! Ooh! Let me be John Hancock! Let me be John Hancock!
What am I missing here?
You writhe under the oppressive tyranny of the YECist machine. I lament our (YECist) minority status and relative impotency in Evangelical circles. Other than John MacArthur and Al Mohler, there are no big-name Evangelicals who are vocal YECists, especially in Reformed Evangelical circles. RC Sproul and younger Reformed Evangelicals such as Rick Phillips and Ligon Duncan (all YECists) are relatively silent on the matter. YECism has never been the majority report in Evangelical and Reformed circles. Leupold, Befkhof and Hendrikson were the only well-known 20th century Reformed Evangelical YECists, and they were marginalized by their peers. The VAST majority of the signers of the Chicago Statements on Inerrancy and Hermeneutics were OECists. I want to know who the power-mongering YECist Evangelicals are! I'm lonely! There are plenty of Fundamentalist YECists, but Evangelicals? Wake me up and call me Rip Van Winkle! Have I missed something the last 30 years or so? The movie "Expelled" lamented the expulsion or exclusion of ID (OECist) scientists from prestigious universities and research institutes across America. YECists have been excluded and expelled for 50 years. I don't hear them whining. The first generation of YECist scientists in the 1960's were largely converted after obtaining their doctorates. Nowadays, if you want to sabotage your doctoral endeavors, just let it slip out that you are a YECist. My grind has been that Evangelicals have ostracized and/or marginalized YECists in the academic and scholarly arena for nearly 50 years. YECism embarrasses the Evangelical brethren. An indicator of the lack of power and prestige of the YECist movement is manifested in the ETS. YECism is perceived as utter intellectual foolishness by the typical Evangelical scholar. (See Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind). So, clue me in as to the identities of these jackbooted thugs claiming to be Evangelical YECists.
I read your blogspots with appreciation. Your Declaration of Independence is prophetical. YECism and OECism cannot co-exist in close proximity and maintain a state of peace. The positions are drastically incompatible. You have seen it. Your Declaration attests to this profound incompatibility. You are working out the implications of your epistemology in terms of a theistical evolutionary cosmology, AND you have the courage to post it publicly for all to read. Hugh Ross is also engaged in a mammoth effort to work out a Biblical progressive creationist cosmology. Evangelical, OECist theologians are being forced to reconcile their Bible to the findings of modern science. They are squirming a bit. Vern Poythress, Jack Collins and John Walton have recently published tomes seeking to synthesize science and faith. They have been a bit tentative to work out the specific details. I don’t know why. Who is there to fear? Certainly not the vast Right-wing Evangelical YECist machine. There isn’t one. If you disagree, please make my day. Demonstrate my error. Thanks!
Clarification on the above comment: YECism has not been the majorty report in MODERN Evangelical and Reformed circles since the mid-1800's. Thanks.
Jon,
Thanks for your comments. Your points are well taken, but they seem to miss the point of the satire, the genre of which contains elements of exaggeration and juxtaposition. I suppose I could have listed OEC and ID as well, but that would have made the piece a little unwieldy. Allow me to think on it a bit though.
As for my own personal experience, most of the churches I've been to or visited make YEC part of their Statement of Faith. The church I currently attend even barred me from membership based on my "protology."
BTW, R. C. Sproul came out in favor of YEC several years ago.
Mike
You need to create a signature block for others to sign. Although I am not firmly in the evolutionary creation camps (I reside somewhere in between it and the ID camps) I have know the oppression of the YEC for some 25 years. I would love to officially be a "founding signatory" risking wealth (I have none) and reputation (dido) to sign this.
Mick,
If I knew how to create a signature block, I would!
Maybe I just need to create a whole 'nother website just for this "revolutionary" document. 😉
Jon,
I would echo Mike's sentiments. YECism isn't well represented in scholarly circles (even evangelical scholarly cirlces). But it is heavily represented in evangelical congregations.
Mike & AMW,
The satire was manifest. Again, it was an impressive document. Some YECists are touchy. No disagreement there. For 20+ years I have been promoting YECist seminars in my area of the Bible belt. It's like pulling teeth to get Evangelical and Reformed pastors on board, mostly the larger churches. "We don't want to be known as a YECist church." With Fundamentalists, it is a different story. I make a distinction between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. Are we mixing metaphors?
The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, The Gospel Coalition, the signers of the recent Manhattan Declaration…how many are YECists..with a backbone and vocal chords? I'm not at all implying prevarication or exaggeration on your part. I would venture that most of the donations to Answers in Genesis, CMI and ICR are from individuals and not from churches. IN THE PEW, there is still a YEC "memory". Not much knowledge, just a faint memory yielding a measure of suspicion and caution. Ken Ham argues in his book, Already Gone, that the reason 80% of the children of Evangelicals leave the church is because the youth are not being taught the Bible and how to defend their faith. Though some (many?) Evangelical churches may CLAIM to be YECist, they are not teaching doctrine nor how to explain or defend it.
I knew about Dr. Sproul. He is a gracious man. He has been relatively quiet on the matter and slow to publicly identify and correct specific errors in his many works. Will the Reformation Study Bible reflect his position change in its notes? I doubt it. By the way, how many of the editors and contributors to the study Bible are YECists? Few, if any! Augustine issued his Recantations. Will Dr. Sproul have his? I hope so. His ministry has blessed multitudes over the decades. Hopefully, he will seek to rectify the matter in his works and with the many men and women who have studied under him.
I want to take you up on the phone offer some time. Nifty idea!
jo
Jon,
Truly appreciate your insight and experience here. I also appreciate greatly the spirit in which you comment.
As for the phone offer, I'm afraid it won't work through the end of the year. My cell phone is not international-capable, unfortunately. (Thanks for the reminder to take down temporarily that feature of my blog.)
I am, of course, available on Skype and live in the GMT+3 time zone (Riyadh/Kuwait).
***********
All,
I've been thinking about replacing mentions of "Young-Earth Creationism" with the catch-all "Special Creationism." Would the document lose its impact? Would it reflect the reality of the situation to a greater degree?
The "YE" part does seem a little narrow, now that you mention it. AFAIC, I think it should go for all special creationism.
Jon,
Thanks for your critique. After some thought (and Steve's affirmation), I've changed the document to reflect all forms of "special creationism."
Contrary to blog protocol, I won't make note of the change in the post itself since (1) the post is relatively recent, (2) the change is documented in the comments section, and (3) putting the note at the bottom of the post or even within the text itself would sully the piece. Hope no one minds. 😉
Could you please define "special creationism"?
Thanks!
Alan,
"Special Creationism" is a theological doctrine which holds that God created all life on earth (including humans) in essentially their present form. More recently, however, this term is also used to describe Intelligent Design, which, beyond the initial act of creation (i.e., the Big Bang), requires God to have directly intervened in the natural laws He instituted at the beginning of time in order to produce life, which repudiates the theory of abiogenesis.
Thank you! That's what I thought, but I just wanted to be sure.
This post kind of makes me laugh in that case – you seem to be hitching a lot of your wagons to a dying and failing idea, that of evolution. It's going to come back and bite you. The parallels with the anthropogenic global warming scam are deep and wide. Anyway, consider this a warning from an outsider looking in, and that's to say nothing of how irritated God is that you're rewriting history for Him.
Peace,
Rhology
Alan,
a dying and failing idea, that of evolution.
I used to preach that mantra as recent as three years ago, but God's brought me a long way from the dying and failing concept that is Special Creationism. What kind of objective evidence do you have that evolutionary theory is on the decline? Likewise, what kind of objective evidence do you have that Special Creationism is surging?
It's going to come back and bite you.
So you "prophesy." You know where to find me if you desire to tell me, "I told you so."
The parallels with the anthropogenic global warming scam are deep and wide.
There's a big difference between evolution and anthropogenic global warming (the latter to which I don't subscribe at the present). One is that the body of evidence for evolution has grown by leaps and bounds over the last 150 years, whereas the scientific consensus in favor of AGW is not unanimous in the slightest, and there is much more honest study to be done.
The evidence for evolution is there, Alan, but I'm afraid that you either retreat into cognitive dissonance when faced with the facts, or you merely choose to remain uneducated on the facts.
consider this a warning … of how irritated God is that you're rewriting history for Him.
It's not a rewrite, Alan. It's discovering God's "original manuscript," so to speak. I'll leave it to you to unwrap the infallible message of faith (the divine aspect of Scripture) from the fallible vessel in which it's delivered (the human aspect of Scripture). It'd be a shame not to unwrap that gift, Alan, as my faith in God and His divine plan has never been clearer since I gave up my addiction to "proving" Special Creationism and biblical inerrancy. A counter-intuitive twist, to be sure, but one that's occurred nonetheless.
Hi Mike,
God's brought me a long way from the dying and failing concept that is Special Creationism
That's funny – didn't AMW just finish telling us that "it is heavily represented in evangelical congregations"?
TTP is fairly popular, you know, as is ID. When's the last time an evolution book sold well among Christians? I'm curious, I'd actually like to know.
There's a big difference between evolution and anthropogenic global warming
Yeah, like the "scientific" "consensus". Oh wait, that's not it.
Or maybe the massive data rewrites. No, that's not it either.
Oh! Perhaps the huge edifices of assumptions! Hmm, no, not it either.
Ah, I know. B/c one group practices academic shunning and expulsions for dissent.
Dang, they both do that TOO. Gosh, this is tough. You're gonna have to help me out on this one.
I'll leave it to you to unwrap the infallible message of faith (the divine aspect of Scripture) from the fallible vessel in which it's delivered (the human aspect of Scripture).
Um, since I think ALL of it is infallible, I should think that'd be YOUR job. Where does the fallible bad stuff end and the infallible good stuff begin? And how do you know?
It'd be a shame not to unwrap that gift, Alan, as my faith in God and His divine plan has never been clearer since I gave up my addiction to "proving" Special Creationism and biblical inerrancy.
Stronger faith in an idol is not particularly commendable, Mike.
Peace,
Rhology
Alan,
didn't AMW just finish telling us that "it is heavily represented in evangelical congregations"?
I was speaking in global terms, not in terms of the Evangelical church.
TTP is fairly popular, you know, as is ID.
So is the Left Behind series in the Evangelical church.
When's the last time an evolution book sold well among Christians? I'm curious, I'd actually like to know.
The number of pro-evolution books written by Evangelicals in the last six years is rising. And is a book's popularity really an indication of the correctness of doctrine?
B/c one group practices academic shunning and expulsions for dissent.
And Christian colleges don't expel theistic evolutionists from within their ranks? Now you're being disingenuous. BTW, Expelled's presentation of the facts has much to be desired.
I think ALL of it is infallible
Is this objectively demonstrable?
Where does the fallible bad stuff end and the infallible good stuff begin? And how do you know?
Honestly, I'm still working that out.
>Stronger faith in an idol is not particularly commendable, Mike.
And my idol is … ?
Mike,
I was speaking in global terms, not in terms of the Evangelical church.
That's a bit disingenuous. Liberal Christianity isn't exactly flourishing all over the world either. So, what's your point?
So is the Left Behind series in the Evangelical church.
Again, your point? You said the idea of SpecCrea is dying; I point out it's not; you point out the popularity of ANOTHER idea. Why isn't that a red herring?
The number of pro-evolution books written by Evangelicals in the last six years is rising. And is a book's popularity really an indication of the correctness of doctrine?
OK, thanks for the info. I didn't know that.
But the 2nd sentence is the same red herring. Why are you shifting the goalposts all of a sudden?
And Christian colleges don't expel theistic evolutionists from within their ranks?
ANOTHER red herring, and this time you throw in a tu quoque fallacy to boot. The fallacies are stacking up, Mike.
Is this objectively demonstrable?
No, it is a fundamental presupposition of the only rational worldview in existence. This is demonstrated thru the failure of all rival worldviews.
Honestly, I'm still working that out.
I thank you for your honesty and for not moving the goalposts, at least on this question.
So let me ask you – since you're still working it out, why assume that ANY of it is good? Why assume any of it is authoritative?
In what way is the Bible an authority for you? Since the Bible is the only way you know anythg about Jesus, why assume that it got the Jesus parts right? Is it just b/c you like those parts? If that's what your answer boils down to, doesn't that make YOU the authority rather than God?
And my idol is … ?
Your assumption of reason, knowing better than God.
Alan,
Liberal Christianity isn't exactly flourishing all over the world either. So, what's your point?
You called evolution a dying concept. I simply said it's not. I wasn't speaking of its popularity within Christianity, but rather its general acceptance throughout the world.
You said the idea of SpecCrea is dying; I point out it's not; you point out the popularity of ANOTHER idea. Why isn't that a red herring?
The popularity of an idea says nothing about its correctness. The popularity of evolution says nothing about its correctness. The popularity of the Left Behind series says nothing about its correctness. In regard to evolution, I merely stated my observations regarding its status as a concept. I think you're making much more of my statements than is actually there.
Why are you shifting the goalposts all of a sudden?
I shift no goalposts, Alan. Although I am confident in my conclusions and, at times, passionate in expressing my beliefs, I also recognize my intellect as fallible. I am human, after all. I have had a number of paradigm shifts in the last decade, some of which I completed kicking and screaming. I'm determined to go wherever the truth is, even if it leads me 180º back to special creationism. I fear no facts and I certainly don't fear accepting an unpopular view.
No, it is a fundamental presupposition of the only rational worldview in existence. This is demonstrated thru the failure of all rival worldviews.
In your case, all other rival worldviews (including mine) have failed to pass muster. That's your prerogative. I find myself in an identical situation, Alan. We are more alike that I suspect you'd desire to admit.
since you're still working it out, why assume that ANY of it is good? Why assume any of it is authoritative?
I don't assume that any of it is good or authoritative. I merely go where I believe the truth resides. God gave me an intellect and I fully intend to use it to His glory.
In what way is the Bible an authority for you?
In matters of faith and practice, the Bible is authoritative.
Since the Bible is the only way you know anything about Jesus, why assume that it got the Jesus parts right?
Because I believe that the Gospel accounts are historically reliable and trustworthy.
Is it just b/c you like those parts? If that's what your answer boils down to, doesn't that make YOU the authority rather than God?
Think about it, Alan. You're in no different a boat. Your own intellect and reason are your ultimate authorities, regardless of what authority under which you've placed yourself after the fact. No matter how you slice it, you rule the day in what you choose to believe and in Whom you choose to serve.
Your assumption of reason [is your idol], knowing better than God.
And how do I profess to know better than God? I've never said such a thing, nor do I believe such a thing.
Anyway, I'm tiring of this debate. I'd rather dialogue over a few pints of beer. Let me know if you ever make it to the DC area in 2011. First round's on me.
Mike,
You called evolution a dying concept. I simply said it's not.
Going downhill in the polls, as I've seen them.
But it's not a big deal to me.
The popularity of an idea says nothing about its correctness
Yes, I know and I agree.
In your case, all other rival worldviews (including mine) have failed to pass muster. That's your prerogative.
It's not just MY case. I didn't create the worldview I espouse. By the grace of God, I have simply recognised its truth.
Truth is objective, and it is possible to access truth sufficiently to recognise whether a system is true or false.
We are more alike that I suspect you'd desire to admit.
*shrug* Actually, not to be rude, but it's unimportant to me how much we're "alike". What matters in this context is our positions.
I don't assume that any of it is good or authoritative. I merely go where I believe the truth resides. God gave me an intellect and I fully intend to use it to His glory.
Let's take a concrete case so you can see what I mean.
Jesus said to repent of your sins and believe in Him as the only way to God the Father. This is a command. Does this command have any authority claim over you or not? Are you obligated to obey this command?
If not, on what basis do you count Jesus' claimed authority as non-real authority?
If so, on what basis do you differentiate the other commands in Scripture that you do NOT follow as non-real authority, such as the obligation to believe all that God has communicated to mankind, and then goes on to identify Genesis and the Flood account as part of that communication to mankind?
In matters of faith and practice, the Bible is authoritative.
How do you know that?
Because I believe that the Gospel accounts are historically reliable and trustworthy
How do you know that?
And how do you know that Genesis is not?
Your own intellect and reason are your ultimate authorities
Sorry, you don't understand my position if you think that. And I'm under no obligation to play along with a strawman.
And how do I profess to know better than God?
You've corrected God's informing you how creation went down and claimed Genesis is a load of bull, and insert evolution and a zillion-year-old Earth in its place.
I'd rather dialogue over a few pints of beer.
A kind offer, though I'm more of an espresso guy. I will.
Peace,
Rhology
Rhology said :
You've corrected God's informing you how creation went down and claimed Genesis is a load of bull, and insert evolution and a zillion-year-old Earth in its place.
TEs/ECs believe that Genesis was meant to reveal to man the nature of God and his relationship with man and was never meant to be a historically or scientifically accurate account of the universe's creation. This doesn't make the story a "load of bull" in their eyes, just that it is saying something other than what you believe it to be saying.
You really have no understanding of the beliefs of TEs/ECs do you? That or you are deliberately misrepresenting them.
So, Anonymous, when it says "God created the heavens and the earth" and then describes in detail how and in what order… is that how it happened or not?
What in the text indicates that this is "meant to reveal to man the nature of God and his relationship with man"? How does a false story help describe truth? Help me follow you.
Rhology:
Did you even read Mike's posts on his steps he took? He clearly outlined the answer to this question in those posts.
I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm willing to assume that the beginning of stories in Hebrew culture tell you how the characters got to the action of the story. The main action of the story is that Jesus died for you and me. Genesis 1 is simply outlining how Jesus got to that point, starting with the beginning of 'everything.'
Mike: I just had to weigh in on this one. This discussion is what I'm having with my beau at the moment–he's a die-hard YEC'er just like Rhology here. I'm glad I found your blog, though I was introduced to the OEC-theory by my 7th/8th grade TAG teacher back in the day, lining up "God's day" with millenia. Best of luck to you over there!
Heartnut,
I'm a friend of Mike's and fellow ECer.
Interesting to hear your first exposure to OEC was in 7th/8th grade. I too had a 7th grade teacher who introduced me to OEC. Thanks to him, Physics in college didn't burst my bubble. Of course that didn't mean that his concordism didn't need to be burst at some later date…
Welcome!
Dan
Hi heartnut,
No, I didn't read all those posts. Just mostly the last 5 he's done.
You can SAY Gen 1 is an outline of how we get there, but if it's not historical, what good is it? Especially to the mind who is so wedded to modern conceptions of scientism?
I'm not a die-hard YEC; I'm just here pointing out how ridiculous these particular arguments are. If you want to know truth, go to God. Don't go to rationalistic empiricist science, which is always fallacious in its reasoning. Always.
I find it interesting that people are still debating creationism vs evolution.
————————–
The Atheist Perspective
I guess you consider the parables of Jesus to be worthless then Rhology. I mean, if their truths were important he would have laid them out plain and simple instead of conveying them through allegories and symbolism.
What makes you say that, Anonymous?
Pingback: An Evolutionary Creationist’s Declaration of Independence