Re: AiG bites the dust

From: John Burgeson (
Date: Mon Sep 30 2002 - 11:15:06 EDT

  • Next message: John Burgeson: "Re: AiG bites the dust"

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

    You have stated my position correctly and clearly. I respect your position
    but I urge you to study the issues more than you apparently have.

    "Referring to their theories as snake oil further supports my conclusion
    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."

    My comments are not ad hominum. It is their ideas that I attack, not their
    persons. As a matter of fact, I can fairly claim Dr. Gish as a friend, as
    well as a fellow Christian. I have a number of friends who have not (yet)
    seen the snake oil in the ICR/AIG ideas.

    "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."

    If you see me "viciously lashing out," please call me to account. I try very
    hard not to do that, whether the "believer" is one who holds YECism, or
    Mormonism, or KJV-only ism, or SDAism, or Hinduism, or any one of many
    worldviews. The person is worthy of respect; the ideas are fairly

    "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."

    I have studied these debates. To an extent, I agree. The YEC folks CAN
    produce credible arguments for their long-out dated ideas in debates, as
    long as the audience is composed mostly of (1) present adherents, (2) naive
    laypeople, untrained in science, (3) young college and high school students
    who have not yet had a scientific education. To this list I might also add
    some engineers, who may have considerable college and even post college
    training, but are "developers" rather than "discoverers" of the sciences.
    And perhaps even lawyers, who see the issues in the framework of their legal

    But I hasten to add that science is not performed in the settings of
    debates, but in the establishment of falsifiable models which explain the
    the known data and are always subject to falsification by the exhibition of
    contrary data. When I attended the ICR seminar in the summer of 1988, four
    days of lectures and Qs and As, I challenged my friend, Dr. Gish, on several
    occasions to specify what kind of experiment or scientific discovery could,
    at least in principle, falsify either the "young earth" or the "global
    flood." Neither he, nor Dr. Morris, nor Ken Ham were able to address this
    question. But if you were to ask ANY scientist about any particular
    scientific model what would, in principle, falsify that model, I am
    confident you would get a very quick and easyto understand answer.

    "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."

    Whatever. Perhaps you'd like to start by questioning the gravitational
    models. Or perhaps the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Or the 1st Law. People do
    that all the time, you know. They innundae the Patent office with their new
    "perpetual motion machines."

    Here is perhaps a better place to start. Perhaps the earth IS the center of
    the universe. At least one professor of astronomy, Gerald DeBoew, of Case,
    promotes this idea. Think of it. Overthrow Copernicus! You'd be famous.

    Better keep your day job.



    Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 30 2002 - 12:06:14 EDT