hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (02/26/85)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe I can clear this up. There is no doubt that Duane Gish is a member > of the ICR and that he endorses it as it endorses him. Although you took > Miller's point in its entirety, it needs the context of the recent > postings to this group for its meaning. Lately people have stated > (although if they're not members of the ICR, they're sooting in the dark) > that membership in the ICR and professing to be Jewish or Christian were > synonymous. I'm sure, my apologies if wrong, that Miller is simply stating > that membership is open to those who have a desire to research creationism > as a viable answer to the origin question and not based on other criteria. > > Mike Johnston Don't waste your time, Mike! It is NOT relevant whether Gish is a member or an endorsee or an employee or whatever of ICR. The issue is ICR's insistence on accepting the literal interpretation of the Bible. If that were alone, things would not be so bad. HOWEVER, ICR also insists that it is a scientific research-oriented organization! The two directly conflict and contradict each other! There is no evidence supporting a flat earth, a young earth, a world-wide flood, a GOD, ... I am talking about SCIENTIFIC evidence; not religious artifacts! When you scientifically search for something, YOU DO NOT DEFINE IT! You discover its characteristics and its behavior! YOU DO NOT ACCEPT IT! (Arguing that some scientists firmly believe in what they are looking for is nonsense. Having extreme enthusiasm is NOT the same as having knowledge!) The ICR blatantly vio- late these rules. THAT is the issue. No one really cares about membership issues. (Except A Ray Miller. He might be abusing this issue to distract the real conversation.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keebler