From: hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: noah's ark
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:04:41 GMT
Reply-To: hamilton@gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Distribution: usa
Organization: GM Research Labs, Warren, MI

In article <1992Nov3.110932@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.145412.22832@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
>jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
>> Bruce Korb (bkorb@starbase.Convergent.Com) wrote:
>> > The big bang happened.  The universe was created when that happened.
>> > God did this, so I am a creationist.
>>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 	As many people here will no doubt tell you, this is an unsupported
>> assertion.  It is far more proper to state "Based on my Christian faith 
>> alone, I can believe that God brought the Universe into being through the
>> mechanism of the "Big Bang"."  But in the sense of scientific proof for
>> God being responsible for the Big Bang, there is none (and as I have 
>> stated several times, if there were, we would then be in the position of
>> being able to prove God scientifically, eliminating the need for faith,
>> and henceforth the main point of God's plan -- faith in the salvation 
>> offered to us by Jesus Christ.)  Be very careful with bold & bald unsupported
>> assertions.

I've tried to make this point before, but not as clearly or concisely as you
do here, Jim. Thanks.

>
>  I suppose the real important thing to point out is not the assertion, but the
>failure of proper flow of logic.
>
>  The term "Creationist" referrs to a person who believes the universe was
>created ex-nihilo, in more-or-less its present form.  If we were to go with the
>logic presented (if you believe God was involved 
>in the creation of the universe
>in any way you are a creationist) then I would be 
>hard pressed to think of a way
>a person can believe in God and not be a creationist.

Agreed. But still the term creationist, defined as one who believes that
God created the universe, has its utility in conservative Christian
circles.  Tell a conservative Christian you're not a creationist and
many of them will prepare for battle. Any further opportunity for
communication is lost. On the other hand, if you tell them, as I do,
"I'm a creationist, but not the young-earth variety, " some of them will
be willing to discuss what you mean and why you take that position. Since one
of my passions in life is to try to communicate to Christians why the age
of the earth and the age of the universe and the specific methods God
used to develop things are not what the Scriptures are talking about, I prefer
to use terminology that keeps communication lines open. As I said above,
it doesn't always keep them open. But that's a risk I have to take to find
those who are willing to learn. And that's what I and other Christians 
who want the Christian community to attack real, not imaginary, targets 
must do if we want to change the situation.

>
>  No, Bruce is not a creationist (at least, as I interpret the word (which of
>course is completely objective :-))
>
>> 	Welcome to t.o. and CWACK (just organized today, by the way).
>> Who else is willing to be a CWACKer?
>
I'm sorry. I saw the definition, but didn't save it and now I've forgotten it.
Was it something like Christians Wanting to Abolish Crackpot Kreationism?

I'm in sympathy with the aims, but the spelling of the last word makes me
cringe. I guess I've seen that sort of thing too many times in 
advertising copy. Actually your acronym would be pronounced the same way
if you spelled it with a "C". Just a suggestion from an incurably obnoxious
traditionalist on the subject of spelling - but don't get me going on
that one.

Bill Hamilton

GM Research Labs
(formerly GM Research and Environmental Staff
          (formerly GM Research Labs))

The more things change the more they stay the same. sigh.