CMI's Tas Walker Missing a Point

First off, he writes a very good article here:

CMI : The heritage trail at Siccar Point, Scotland
Commemorating an idea that did not work
by Tas Walker
http://creation.com/siccar-point-trail

At least it seems good enough to me on my limited knowledge of Geology.

Then I read the comments too.

james p H. says on top of his comment, among other things:

"However, as the son of a Presbyterian minister, it is unfortunate that Playfair did not connect his Bible with the world around him"

as always: the biggest problem for Christianity are these sold-out, compromised Christians who still insist on calling them-selves that.....

My answer to that (Ioannes Georgius = Hans Georg since I had overstepped my quota of comments for the year, and I used another email account too so the computer program would not stop it):

Playfair was Presbyterian. Cuvier was Lutheran. Lyell was Anglican. Darwin was Anglican. Hume was Presbyterian. So was pres-hume-ably Hutton.

These men were not compromising away their Christianity with an already existing ideology, they were sacrificing it to their take on what it meant to be a Protestant.

Now, Tas Walker has responded:

Actually they had compromised. They certainly rejected the Bible's history as being true. Just because someone grows up in a church does not mean they are a follower of Christ and accept what He taught. Teillard de Chardin was a Catholic priest but promoted evolution as the great creative force and the truth to which everything should bow. He was clearly not promoting othodox beliefs. Richard Dawkins was confirmed as an Anglican but he rejected that and is now the foremost advocate of atheism.

My point was not that Playfair had not "compromised away" Christianity. But I prefer the word rejected. My point was that, unlike Teilhard de Chardin and Wojtyla and Dawkins, this rejection was not in favour of an already existing Evolutionist Old Age ideology, but that rather, like new heresiarchs, these Protestants (all of them Protestants, none Catholic and none Baptist for that matter) by rejecting more of the Bible than previously were not compromising with Old Age but creating this ideology and its ramification Darwinism.

My other point was that all these creators of the Evolutionist and generally Uniformitarian, Old Age and Antimiraculous ideologies were not only Protestants, but so good Protestants they sacrificed their Christianity to the Protestantism. In other words, they were heresiarchs, more radical than the Reformers, but really in the same direction as the Reformers.

I had expected a challenge on the fact that Cuvier was of a Lutheran family. It is a French name. I underestimated then severely the erudition of Tas Walker. But if anyone of my readers is less knowledgeable than he, I recommend wikipedia. If it be no longer available, I give others the little answer speech I had prepared for Tas.

Cuvier was a French subject. However, he was from Alsatian Lotharingian new provinces of France. Louis XIV has wasted his time exporting Protestants to Holland and England, Scotland and Ireland through the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, when it was just to get back other Protestants through conquests at the expense of the Holy Roman Empire. Probably he may have had ancestors named Böttner / Boetnner rather than Cuvier. As I look up "cuvier", disambiguation page, it seems I was wrong, and it should rather be Böttich / Boettich. Or even Bottich. It means a large, open container in either language.

I looked up others mentioned in comments. "Frank (Francis Trevelyan) Buckland was born and brought up in Oxford, where his father was a Canon of Christ Church." And "Jean-André Deluc ... was born in Geneva; his family had come from Lucca, Italy, in the 15th century."

Now, it was put down to Enlightenment, but that only excuses so much, even if R. D. says that was the cause:

Of course, it was not his observations of these rocks which led Dr. Hutton to conclude that the earth (and the entire cosmos) was not made in six days - what led him to conclude this was his deistic mindset which came from the "Enlightenment" which he was a product of. He already disbelieved in the Genesis creation account BEFORE he looked at the rocks.

Joseph Haydn left Freemasonry when it was forbidden, by Emperor Francis (not to be confounded with one Bergoglio character in the Vatican). But he had written Die Schöpfung (The Creation) while still a Freemason and to a libretto by a Freemason, van Swieten. It could be argued that God creating all there is in the beginning (plus parts of the morality) is the only thing certain enlightened Freemasons believed of the Bible. They were known as Deists.

As I just brought up, Deism (which accepts roughly Genesis 1 of all the Bible), Atheism, Liberal Christianity were all parts of an Enlightenment connected to Freemasonry.

And, First Grand Lodge of that treason to Christianity was established 1717, two Centuries after the 95 Theses (and after Zwinglius in Switzerland), two Centuries before the Russian Revolution and the similar Mexican Revolution. And it was established in London, where it was illegal to be at once a Catholic and enjoy one's life.

Freemasonry and thus Enlightenment were products of Protestantism.

The same R. D. mentioned the resistance to Uniformitarianism. Here is his list:

The fact that their geological knowledge was lesser than that which we have today only excuses them so much - as the likes of Kirwan, Young, Fairholme and Penn demonstrate, others saw through this.

The first of these is no doubt Richard Kirwan. He was a former Catholic. He had probably embraced Anglicanism (an act of Apostasy) for wordly reasons. Here is the wikipedian reference:

Richard Kirwan was born at Cloughballymore, Co. Galway, the second son of Marty and Martin Kirwan, thus a descendant of William Ó Ciardhubháin and a member of The Tribes of Galway. Part of his early life was spent abroad, and in 1754 he entered the Jesuit novitiate either at St Omer or at Hesdin, but returned to Ireland in the following year, when he succeeded to the family estates through the death of his brother in a duel. Kirwan married in 1757, but his wife only lived eight more years. The couple had two daughters, Maria Theresa and Eliza.

In 1766, having conformed to the established religion two years previously, Kirwan was called to the Irish bar, but in 1768 abandoned practice in favour of scientific pursuits.

So, though he could get to a religion where the validity of Sacraments was at least highly doubtful from the point of view of the Catholic Theology he abandoned, he would not also on top of that deny the Flood.

I can bet that his Jesuit teachers did not include Pierre Teilhard de Chardin or Georges Lemaître. I can add that the kind of Apostasy that Old Age Uniformitarianism and Evolutionism constitute were of course bound to spread to Catholics once they were common among Protestants. Hence these two other, less ideal, Jesuits. That was what Leo X, St Pius V and Urban VIII as Popes of Rome had tried to avoid when condemning 41 theses in Exsurge, when condemning lots more of Protestantism (Lutheran, Zwinglian, Anabaptist, Socinian, Anglican and Calmvinist heresies) in and with Council of Trent and also when condemning (by confirmation of a verdict the Pope had not been judge in) the Heliocentric theses of Galileo.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
13 / V / 2014