From: John Burgeson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Sep 30 2002 - 11:15:06 EDT
Jay writes: "Your position appears to be that AiG and ICR are not parts of
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