Dear Editor:
Congratulations on publishing Dick Elmendorf. I follow with great interest his correspondence with John Robbins.
All the articles are So Good. Keep up the Good Work. God bless you and please pray for me.
Paula Haigh
Colonial Beach, VA 22443
I have read part of your last number, but do not have it beside me on the ferry where I am at present on the way to Vancouver for the day. Business periodically takes me over.
I do however recollect the tenor of your editorial comments, and found there a note which I cannot personally endorse, although it does not affect my best wishes for the success of your work in general. I refer to the statement to the effect that you were toeing the line in insisting upon a (more or less) 10,000 year old earth. This will ensure that your periodical is not blackmarked by the many creationists on this continent who hold this view exclusively, but is it right to start a paper, presumably in the spirit of humble inquiry, and determine from the start (as well as stating in an editorial) that you "keep rank," i.e. have frozen your position, on the most controversial question among creationists? I greatly respect Drs. Gish and Morris, who both know of my reserves concerning a 10,000 year universe. If this turned out correct, I believe I could good-naturedly join in the laugh. I am in no way committed to what evolutionists have to say about ages, nor about the fossil record of course, but I believe that there are enough spiritual, scriptural, and scientific questions of magnitude to make it important to keep open the question of just bow and when things happened between Genesis 1.1 and Genesis 1.31. Respect for the many the spiritually minded men who have differed and now differ on these questions, is alone sufficient in my view to justify more openness, in a matter involving interpretation, and relative to something essentially mysterious.
I have ceased trying to persuade people that allowance for time somewhere in the brief record of Genesis I is not necessarily due to conscious or unconscious concession to evolutionists. They try, but they can't help judging their differing brethren en masse as 1/2 evolutionists (sometimes true).
Dennis Burrowes
Victoria, B.C.
Canada
We at Lubbock Bible Church deeply appreciate and count it a Blessing that you have begun bringing Doctrinal light to the Social Sciences and Humanities. As Chairman of our Library Committee, it was brought to my attention that we had not as yet subscribed to your publication, and as a result, the article on Metaphor: An Evidence from Design of the Creation Model by our own Kathy Lynn Hutson was not in our library.
While I realize that the issues in question, Vol.1, No. I - Winter 1978 and Vol. I, No. 1 - Fall 1978, may no longer be available, if they are it would be a particular blessing for this Body of Christ. We will of course be glad to pay an extra charge for these back issues. We pray for your continued growth and success.
Cary T. Kingston
Lubbock, TX 79410
We do not at this time have the opportunity to consider all the ramifications of the conflict between the Christian view of the law and sin and guilt, on the one hand, and the philosophy of evolution on the other, but it might he well if someday a Christian lawyer with a solid knowledge of biblical doctrine would make a study of this subject. The argument that Clarence Darrow used to use on his juries, namely, that the defendants, though guilty, were not responsible for their crimes... the theory of many modem penologists that the purpose of our whole penal system is not to punish but to reform... would be interesting items of evidence to consider in this study.... This whole question has a hearing also on the widespread lawlessness and delinquency of our time. For three generations our public schools have been teaching our children that they are the descendants of animals. We ought not to be surprised when they begin to act like animals.
From April 1979 Creation Science Association News, p.2 published by Creation Science Association Birmingham, MI 48009
Editor's Note: The C.S.S.H. Quarterly would be glad to consider for publication a study by a Christian lawyer as outlined above.
Thank you for publishing my "letter" in the CSSHS Quarterly! lam certainly glad that you recognize the concern of pro-science creationists about the "science vs. religion" conflict creeping back into the C/E controversy. I'll look forward to seeing Mr. Robbins's reply, or that of others. Keep tilting!
R.G. Elmendorf
Bairdford, PA 15006
Your article "The Problem of Origins in the Academic Disciplines" in this last issue (Spring 1979) was very strong and convincing, especially with the emphasis of compassion on the intellectual "beaten and stranded" by humanism. I pray that God will continue to bless the "good Samaritan" view of CSSHS and that we might again see a strong testimony for Christ in academia. I can truly see the possibility, for "the Lord is not limited to work by many or by few." Thank you for your continued valiant service.
Kathy Rutson
Lubbock, TX 79410
The Quarterly looks like it will be a valuable tool. One observation, the use of "brother." though the expression is expressive of warn spiritual relationship, will not endear the Quarterly as a scholarly journal. Thank you for the fine work.
Robert Suran
Decatur, ALA 35601
|
![]() |
|