You can pick on me as much as you like. Between you, Bill, and Michael Roberts
I am used to people rattling my cage :-)
James Mahaffy wrote:
> Jon said in the above,
> > ever met) that coal formed during Noah's flood not because of
> > scientific evidence, but because their theology requires them to.
> May I suggest we all believe things because our theology and or faith
> requires us to. That is why I believe in a Creator. The difference is
> that a number of Christians are not required by their faith to take a
> stand against the current geological models with their supporting
> scientific evidence.
You are right I think. I expressed myself badly.
> May I suggest that Bob G. reaction to Bill (which was unjust) is also
> faith based and seen as an attack on the foundations of his commitment
> to a type of science that does NOT use the supernatural. It is clear
> that the YEC folks taking a faith based stand that clashes with the
> established paradigms are more apt to be unfairly picked on. I feel for
> them beause while not YEC, my position (which I don't always share)
> sometimes clashes with established paradigms. It would be easier to be
> a dualists or TE but my faith commitment does not let me be either.
> But I suspect it is harder to get a thesis with a model that much of the
> department thinks is wacky. There is a current paleontology grad
> student who I think was unfairly treated because of his YEC position.
> Things have settled down and I think he will get his degree but it was
> nasty for a time.
I think it all depends on what we mean when we speak of a YEC being treated
unfairly. If their facts are wrong and their logic is flawed then the deserve
what they get. If they say one thing in the university and another in church,
then we can question their integrity. Is this wrong? Shouldn't standards by
which we judge the work of Christians be higher than those we judge
There is a hard to define boundary between innovative and wacky ("I am in
innovative thinker, you are eccentric, she is a crank"). Journals are full of
innovative ideas all the time. After all, no journal is going to publish only
stuff that is already known. Most reviewer's sheets start with the question
"Is this material new?"
Of course someone is going to try and publish ideas falsified 160 years ago
(global diluvialism) 230 years ago (global diluvialism for the whole
stratigraphic record and 250 years ago (a young earth) then they have to expect
to be pushing coprolites up a slope. Try publishing falsified ideas that old
in chemistry, biology, astronomy, or physics and see how far you get.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 07 2001 - 06:36:30 EDT