In a message dated 4/9/01 8:38:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
firstname.lastname@example.org writes:" I can't figure out how creationists can make this
kind of an argument. It is so completely twisted and backwards."
Let me see if I can make some points that will contribute to this
discussion and perhaps to someones understanding.
As a Christian that grew up amongst these people I have informally
debated them many times.
1. The biggest misunderstanding is yours. You seem to think of this as a
debate between science and religion. It isn't. It is a an attack on
religious freedom by some fairly bright but unscrupulous power seekers. The
basic tactics they use were well developed by Joe McCarthy and used by a
number of people since.
2. The stakes are simple. If you -- plural -- ever accept that religion is
the most important consideration and that they are the interpreters of
religous orthodoxy then they have won the debate and the power to govern the
3. If you will listen closely to the creationists interpretation -- to use
the word "interpretation" loosely -- and then bother to read the story of
creation in the Bible you will find that the creationist's account is
deficient. There are two accounts of creation in the beginning of the Bible;
not one and neither fit the creationists account very well.
4. The average creationist is a follower not a leader. He/she doesn't
understand the argument at all. But, preacher Somebody told him that was the
right way to think. These are the ones that you usually encounter. If you
want to take them on then don't discuss science which they don't understand
and make no pretense of knowing. Read the account given in the Bible and
discuss that. They don't know the Bible much better than they know science
but the difference is that they are making a Bibical argument and the Bible
they do claim to know. But, they don't.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:45 MDT