I asked you if you were a working scientist and you did not answer. For
your information, there is scientific prejudice even in areas not as
contested as in the area of the question of origins. I have experienced that
and known of many cases in my 35 years of publishing in scientific journals.
I believe in a Creator and my papers get published. That proves that my
ideas and work are acceptable by the scientific community. In areas of
research where new ideas are proposed, then the going gets more difficult.
People oppose new ideas. It is the nature of the beast.
I say again: WE WILL NEVER KNOW HOW GOD CREATED. WE CAN ONLY SPECULATE,
THAT IS ALL WE CAN DO.
You say that we will figure out the question of origins. Let me quote you a
verse: "Professing to be wise, they became fools," Rom. 1:22.
Speaking of ignorance. Do you know the importance and problem involved in
determining the values of fundamental constants? Have you ever published a
paper on this problem? Do you know the names of famous physicists who have
worked on this problem without success?
If it is not obvious to you that the theory of how life came from nonliving
matter is astronomically more difficult than that of the values of the
fundamental constants, then you do not know what matter is nor what life is
nor what a fundamental constants is.
From: Kevin O'Brien <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
To: Moorad Alexanian <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Pim van Meurs
<email@example.com>; Howard J. Van Till <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ASA
Listserve <email@example.com>; Evolution Listserve <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
Date: Sunday, April 04, 1999 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts
>>If YEC are doing science, then they should withstand the normal criticism
>>that goes with doing science. However, I can imagine that none of their
>>papers would make it into most scientific journals. I am not evaluating
>>their work but indicating how close-minded is the scientific community to
>You asked me if I was a working scientist; it is obvious from this
>that you are not (or if you are you work with a very weird group of
>Most scientific journals would not care if the author was a creationist;
>they would only care if he did good work. Most mainstream creationists
>cannot get published because their work is trash, not because they are
>creationists. There are exceptions, and they get published, even though it
>is known that they are creationists.
>>The only reason that we know how a painter painted by observing his
>>work is that we are painters ourselves. Such is not the case with humans
>>a vis God and His creation. We truly will never know how God created. We
>>speculate, but that is all we can do.
>Oh please. Don't depend on your ignorance or the ignorance of others; read
>the scientific literature for a change.
>>The question of origins is a very difficult one. We do not know in physics
>>why the fundamental constants have the values they do.
>Patience, friend, we'll figure it out.
>>How can we then solve
>>problems that are astronomically more difficult that these fundamental
>>question in physics?
>Because in fact they are not; they only seem so at first glance. Read the
>Kevin L. O'Brien