> for one think it is time Christian theologians and
> scientists cease using throwaway suggestions with no
> detailed content as apologetical answers. If we are going
> to suggest something then we should be able to withstand
> the scrutiny of our most avid critics. AND it should be as
> thorough in its work as is the work you and I as scientists
> are expected to do in our respective jobs.
This is a very good point. On our side of the science/theology practice,
when there is no ready explanation for the results of an experiment, it's
OK to speculate (labelling it as such) about what may have happened. This
is perhaps similar to what Ramm has done. However, if someone points out
that one of these speculations can be definitely ruled out for some good
reason then we should quite happily drop it altogether. In the case of the
Flood, it could be that finding a viable concordist scenario is so
difficult that people are loathe to let go of even unviable ones.
Scatterer at Large