Wayne Jackson's response on the extremism of YEC
- From: greeneto@...(Todd S. Greene)
Date: Sun, Jun 26, 2005, 9:18pm (CDT+5)
Subject: Wayne Jackson's response on the extremism of YEC
Currently on the home page of Wayne Jackson's *Christian Courier*
website http://www.christiancourier.com is a reference to this news
In response to that article, on the *Christian Courier* home page is the
following comment by "Norm S.":
> The mainstream media is getting moreThis was yesterday I was reading that (June 25, 2005). Toward the lower
> inflammatory in its characterization of
> religious people as "radicals" and
> "ultra-conservatives." It's becoming more
> commonplace (and acceptable?) to
> demonize or portray as idiots anyone
> who disagrees with commonly accepted
> "scientific" facts.
right of the home page is a link called "Comment on this page!" I
clicked on that and wrote the following to Wayne Jackson, in response to
> It is incorrect to state that "TheThis morning Wayne replied to me as follows:
> mainstream media is getting more
> inflammatory in its characterization of
> religious people as 'radicals' and
>The reference is to *some* religious
> people, not all, who by the positions
> they advocate demonstrate that they
> are extreme in their views.
> Young earth creationism happens to
> be an anti-scientific extremist position,
> and no amount of rhetoric to the contrary
> is going to change that.
> What you really meant was, "No amountWayne is half right. The claim of young earth creationism is an
> of biblical evidence or logical argumentation
> will change my closed mind."
*empirical* claim about the real world, so he is correct that I couldn't
care less about any *biblical* evidence simply because any such evidence
would be entirely irrelevant for determining what the truth of the
To determine whether or not an empirical
claim about the real world is correct we must learn about the
*empirical* information from the real world itself that is relevant to
the subject at issue.
In the interest of being accurate, we must of course use correct logic
in our reasoning with the relevant empirical evidence that we
have at our disposal, so, Wayne is completely incorrect in thinking that
I would in any way disregard logical argumentation.
It is the relevant empirical evidence and proper reasoning about the
relevant empirical evidence that demonstrates the utterly fallacious
nature of young earth creationism, so Wayne's characterization of me is
I reject young earth creationism precisely because I embrace proper
reasoning and the relevant empirical evidence! (I also find
it rather amusing that a young earth creationist - since young earth
creationists are usually about as closed-minded as you can get -
would have the audacity to accuse me of being closed-minded!)
Finally, notice that Wayne did not even comment on the primary point of
my short email to him, which was that the AFP article at the
Yahoo News site is NOT an example of mainstream media "getting more
inflammatory in its characterization of religious people
as 'radicals' and 'ultra-conservatives.'"
Again, the reference is to SOME religious people who by their advocacy
of the scientifically false position of young earth creationism have
an extremist position.
The vast majority of Christians around the
world today reject young earth creationism (and have rejected young
earth creationism for over a hundred years).
I don't have any survey number that I can quote, but I'm aware of the
fact that even in the Church of Christ today, members of the Church of
Christ for the most part either
> (1) reject young earth creationismor
> (2) at least accept the idea that it's(Those young earth creationists who, like Wayne Jackson, argue that any
> perfectly okay for a Christian to
> reject the doctrine of young earth
rejects young earth creationism is a false teacher, are considered
extremists *even in the Church of Christ* today, and estimates I've
seen in articles by Church of Christ members have put between 10% to 20%
the number of congregations where such an extreme perspective as that
The characterization that Norm S. gave the
media article is simply incorrect, because he implies that that the
article represents an example of the media characterizing *all*
religious people in a certain way, but when you read the article itself
you see that that is NOT what the article does.