[net.origins] Signing the CRS statement

hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (03/15/85)

______________________________________________________________________

> { source of original copy : unknown }
>
> In order to focus this issue, I present here the actual  text  of
> the  statement  that  an applicant for membership in the Creation
> Research Society (CRS) must subscribe to.  The CRS  is  based  in
> Ann Arbor, Michigan.
>
> "1. The Bible is the written word of God, and because we  believe
> it to be inspired thruout, all of its assertions are historically
> and scientifically true in all the original autographs.   To  the
> students  of  nature,  this  means that the account of origins in
> Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

The first statement is a bold assertion, giving belief in the valid-
ity of the Bible to be sufficient for its validity.  Interesting ...
"because we believe it to be true, it must be true ... in fact, it's
completely accurate scientifically and historically ..."  Quite some
claims to jump to from a simple belief which is not substantiated at
all though taken for granted.

> "2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by
> direct  creative acts of God during Creation Week as described in
> Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation
> have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

Here we go again!  More leaps and bounds!  There's that silly word
"kind" again.  Here genetic and other types of variation is magic-
ally limited within certainly boundaries which I have yet to see a
creationist define.  Nothing in science justifies the existence of
any such boundary.

> "3. The great Flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as
> the  Noachian  Deluge,  was an historical event, worldwide in its
> extent and scope.

One could easily deduce this statement from the first except for the
worldwide part, which makes the statement even more unbelievable.

> "4. Finally, we are an organization of Christian men of  science,
> who  accept  Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior.  The account of
> the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man  and  one  woman,
> and  their  subsequent Fall into sin, is the basis for our belief
> in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind.  Therefore,  salva-
> tion can only come thru accepting Jesus Christ as Savior.

Science?!  What BS!  "Christian men of science" is about as contra-
dictory as "black is white".  They have already accepted their idea
as true.  Their objective cannot be scientific because they are al-
ready sure of their opinion.  Scientists can never be absolutely
certain of anything.  Scientists' work is for the sake of proving
or disproving theories.  It is illogical to accept it as true, and
then try to prove it.  (It may be simple to do, but it is not valid.)

Paul DuBois said that he would sign this, with a minor constraint.
Someone else wholehearted agrees with everything here.  Okay, you
people that are along the same track as these two ... YES! YOU! ...
are you willing to sign this statement, which contains blatantly
irresponsible passages?
______________________________________________________________________

Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }