> Reading through the pamphlet several things caught my eye, including an
> appeal to Douglas Kelly's book _Creation and Change_ (which I have read but
> many people may not have seen, it's supposedly an examination of the
> exegetical and Biblical case for 6-day creation and endorsed by Brown) and
> Brown's book _In the Beginning_ as "Scientific data that refute the claims
> of "secular, humanist, evolutionist scientists." But the paragraph that
> really made me pause and think was the following:
One could remind people that the claim that all scientists are secular
humanists is demonstrably false (mention the ASA).
> I hope I am not treading over a well worn path here but I was just struck at
> how clearly Anderson's entire view of earth history is shaped by the simple
> belief that fossils are remnants of living things.
Young-earth creationists DO accept modern science when it appears to confirm
their presuppositions. That's why some call it "creation science" and they
pretend to publish scientific papers in publications such as the Creation
Research Society Quarterly. They have a love/hate relationship with science
and eagerly cull from it any data which appears to support their position
(but, of course, ignoring all data which refutes it).
-- Steven H. Schimmrich Physical Sciences Department firstname.lastname@example.org (office) Kutztown University email@example.com (home) 217 Grim Science Building 610-683-4437, 610-683-1352 (fax) Kutztown, Pennsylvania 19530 http://home.earthlink.net/~schimmrich/