Removing the stumbling-block

[/color]

YECs are the bad guys.

It the Finding of Facts in that trial, the YECs stated flatly that the Creator in YEC did NOT have to be God! Need any more evidence?


.

Malaka, I went to the site. Here are some interesting quotes from the author:

"I am inclined to go with Gordon Wenham's view as outlined in the Word Biblical Commentary that the book of Genesis underwent its final "editing" during the monarchy period.[1] For instance, Genesis 36:31 presupposes and refers to a kingdom in Israel, which is yet 500 years from Moses' time but the textual referent is as though it had already existed. Thus, I believe the text had explanatory words layered on or added on up to David's time. However, whatever process through which Torah came to us, it is both divinely inspired yet humanly written."

"When God used the hand and heart of Moses to write Genesis, Moses took old traditions he had heard and used them in his writing. For instance, the stories of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, and the Flood were known to humankind before Moses inscripturated them. They had lived from mouth to mouth, heart to heart. "

How does that fit with your Biblical literalism?

"In the final issue I would like to address the question of out-and-out heresy, potentially the destruction of the whole Christian enterprise through the ham-handed activities of well-intentioned but historically and theologically illiterate Christians. In the "Findings of Fact" filed by the Defendants in the Arkansas Case prior to adjudication, a truly deplorable statement was asserted in paragraph 35: 'Creation-science does presuppose the existence of a creator, to the same degree that evolutin-science presupposes the existence of no creator. As used in the context of creation-science, as defined by 54(a) [sic]of Act 590, the terms or concepts of "creation" and "creator" are not inherently religious terms or concepts. In this sense, the term "creator" means only some entity with power, intelligence, and a sense of design. Creation-science does not require a creator who has a personality, who has the attributes of love, compassion, justice, etc., which are ordinarily attributed to a deity. Indeed, the creation-science model does not require that the creator still be in existence."
It would be hard to set emotional priorities, from bitter sorrow to deep anger, which this wretched formulation and its obvious and cynical compromise with mammon should evoke in any sensitive theological soul. Let us say nothing about the hypocrisy of good people who have obviously convinced themselves that a good cause can be supported by any mendacious and specious means whatsoever. The passage is perverse, however, not only because it says things that are untrue, namely that creationism presupposes a creator whereas evolutionism necessarily does not, and not only because 'creation' and 'creator' are proffered speciously secular, nonreligious definitions.
The worst thing about these unthinking and unhistorical formulations is what Langdon Gilkey pointed out at the Arkansas trial in December of 1981. The concept of a creator God distinct from the God of love and mercy is a reopening of the way to the Marcionist and Gnostic heresies, among the deadliest ever to afflict Christianity. That those who make such formulations do not seriously intend them save as a debating ploy does not mitigate their essential malevolence." Bruce Vawter, "Creationism: creative misuse of the Bible" in Is God a Creationist? Ed. by Roland Frye, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1983 pp 81-82.

BTW, Vawter is a Catholic priest. Gilkey (who testified at the trial) is also a Catholic priest.

Malaka, I'm afraid you don't understand. That "finding of fact" was not given by the state of Arkansas. It was given by Henry Morris and Duane Gish, the Director and Associate Director of the Institute of Creation Research. It represents the official position the only YEC organization present at the time.

This IS Creation Science. So, you can either agree with it or abandon Creation Science.

What is more, it is the ONLY position when you take creationism to science. The new Intelligent Design Movement says the same thing! They realize that science can't give them the identity of the ID, so they separate the ID/Creator from the God of the Bible and say quite frankly that ID as a scientific theory can't make the link.

It is the Gnostic and Marcionist heresy all over again.

It doesn't matter that you personally believe that the Creator of Creation Science is God. Creation Science itself says these things.

Creationism is inherently heresy.

If you don't mind, I will wait until I receive a response to my email I just sent to the Institute where I quoted you and this thread before I make a response.