Re: Common Sense Science

Date: Sun Feb 10 2002 - 16:28:10 EST

  • Next message: Michael Roberts: "Re: Glenn makes front page of AiG today"

    In a message dated 2/9/02 10:09:00 PM Mountain Standard Time, writes:

    > I have been given a reference to this organization and website:
    > I am not qualified to evaluate their claims, but the tone of the material
    > makes me suspicious. Has anyone reviewed their "physical model" theories?
    > Can any of you all supply some insight, criticism, factual perspective, etc?

    About five years ago, on another listserv (the now-defunct "Science and
    Christianity Mailing List" for those who remember), we were visited by a
    poster from "Common Sense Science" for a few weeks. Who then went on to, in
    another forum, completely misrepresent the previous interaction to the point
    where one must conclude the guy is either deluded or has a serious integrity
    problem. See ASA archives posting:
    and surrounding discussion.
    I don't know if the original discussion on the SCICHR list was archived
    anywhere (Steve Schimmrich, do you still read this list?).

    I'll paste in the part of that message where I summarized what these people
    seemed to be about:

    >1) They appear to have two fundamental objections to modern physics
    (particularly QM and relativity). The first is the apparent "randomness"
    in QM, which they feel compromises God's sovereignty (they often quote a
    book called _Not a Chance_ by R.C. Sproul, which I keep meaning to read
    to see if the normally sound Sproul is being taken out of context or if
    he is really in sympathy with CSS in tilting at this windmill). The
    second seems to be the fact that much of modern physics does not satisfy
    their common sense (they see "contradictions" in things like
    wave/particle duality). On that point, one might mention that the
    "common sense" of fallen humans should not be considered an infallible
    guide to truth.
    >2) They are like the ICR in that they seem unwilling or incapable of
    listening to scientific criticism. A pattern was established where their
    spokesman would post one of their essays on the list. Then several of us
    (particularly Earl W., David Bowman, and me) would point out perceived
    flaws, ask clarifying questions, ask for evidence, etc. Soon another
    diatribe from CSS would appear, making absolutely no contact with the
    points brought up in response to the previous one. Trying to have a
    discussion with someone who ignores everything said to him is rather
    frustrating, so I didn't mind when the posts from CSS stopped coming.

    George M. has already mentioned their inadequacies when it comes to physics.
    I think their style of operation gives another reason for Christians to
    reject this organization as a disgrace to the faith.

    Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado |
    "Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
     attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cats"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 10 2002 - 16:29:42 EST