Re: AiG bites the dust

From: Jay Willingham (
Date: Sat Sep 28 2002 - 12:44:18 EDT

  • Next message: Michael Roberts: "Re: AiG bites the dust"

    Your position appears to be that AiG and ICR are not parts of the scientific
    community. I disagree.

    Referring to their theories as snake oil further supports my conclusion that
    both sides need to be less dismissive of the other. Attacks of an ad
    hominum nature denote unavailability of a satisfactory dispassionate
    response to their theories.

    The image of being chopped to pieces in debate on these issues subsumes a
    prejudiced jury. Further, Christ's imprimatur regarding the millstone and
    the deep blue sea should give pause to anyone who claims they are Christian
    yet viciously lashes out at a young believer so that he stumbles.

    Debates before disinterested juries on the subject by scientists learned on
    both subjects have produced results indicating both sides can set forth
    credible arguments for their positions.

    To me, the essence of science is to question conventional dogma. From such
    debate progress is made and entrenched hypothesis masquerading as theory is
    oft demoted to where it belongs.

    Jay Willingham, Esquire
    Central Florida

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "John Burgeson" <>
    To: <>; <>
    Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 12:09 PM
    Subject: Re: AiG bites the dust

    Jay writes, in part: "On one side there is a lack of skepticism about
    radioisotope and stratigraphic dating techniques as well as fossil record
    interpretation. On the other side there is a similar dismissive attitude
    about the same hypotheses and a lack of skepticism about certain biblical
    interpretations. The shrill voices on both sides ... ."

    >From the above, I perceive that you see about the same amount of credibility
    from ICR and AIG as you do from the scientific community.

    All I can recommend to you if you really believe this is to go to AIG and
    ICR with the hard questions. Ask them for their explanations of the
    recognized scientific data, or if they reject that data, on what basis they
    do so.

    I went deep into this in the late 80s -- even attended a week-long seminar
    by ICR. I gave them every benefit of the doubt. I entertained Gish, Ham and
    Morris at lunch and quizzed them. I like them. But they sell snake oil. They
    do great harm to the cause of Christ whenever some young person, steeped in
    their theology (derived from the SDA) and mesmerized by their pseudoscience
    finds his way into any one of the many internet chat groups (I help run one
    on Compuserve) and gets literally chopped to pieces. Or worse -- goes to
    college and finds out his "science" is a joke. At that point, as friend
    Glenn has documemented, he tosses Christianity over the side.


    Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 28 2002 - 15:17:39 EDT