From: John Burgeson (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Dec 19 2002 - 17:31:05 EST
Glenn wrote: "I sent the e-mail
identifying myself as manager of geophysics for an oil compnay. That
usually gets me a response from the academic community. Neither author
responded to the e-mail. My freind was surprised. Now, clearly they are not
required to dance to my tune and answer any old e-mail I send, but the fact
that they didn't respond to a rather serious challenge to their view from a
member of the geoscience community on a technical topic says something."
I fully agree. The lack of response (continuously) from any source gives
them minus marks rather quickly in my book.
I might note that on the rare occasion (perhaps three or four times in the
past year) I have directed a question to the ID folks, either Johnson or
Dembski, I have ALWAYS gotten a very prompt response.
I intend to tackle Dembski's INTELLIGENT DESIGN over the holidays. I am also
honored by one ASA member to edit and critique his proposed book which
disagrees with the ID concept.
John W. Burgeson (Burgy)
>From: "Glenn Morton" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>To: "John Burgeson" <email@example.com>
>Subject: RE: Noah not in the Black Sea
>Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 06:02:51 -0000
> >There are three postures one may take, of course.
> >1. The Black Sea theory (that it sparked the flood legends) is correct.
> >2. The theory may, or may not, be correct.
> >3. The theory is incorrect.
> >And, of course, one may have the posture 1.01, or 1.99, or 2.01, or 2.99,
> >or, indeed any posture at all inbetween the extremes above.
> >"Sitting up," (how else to address the PC god?), I only claim that my own
> >position is probably about 1.75. I'd guess yours to be at 2.99 or so. The
> >fact that you are a lot more the expert in this area than me, and that I
> >highly respect your expertise, keeps me from being about a 2.00.
>With respect, this reminds me a bit of the way the YECs treated the Eddy
>Boornazian report from the late 1970s that the sun's diameter was shrinking
>at a rapid rate. The YECs took the data and calculated that the sun would
>have swallowed the earth only a few million years ago if that rate had
>continued into the past. Eddy and Boornazian never actually recanted their
>suggestion but they ceased mentioning it or referencing their own paper
>after contradictory data proved them wrong. Several papers were published
>the early 80s trashing the shrinking sun idea. The entire astronomical
>community rained on the concept. Yet the YECs continued (indeed do so
>until today) supporting the original (erroneous) report. The fact that the
>original authors no longer defended that suggestion didn't seem to affect
>the way the YECs approached the topic.
>Ryan and Pitman seem to be following an Eddy/Boornazian model. One
>geologist I was discussing the issue with a few months back dared me to
>my objection (concerning the details of planktonic foraminifera) to them in
>an e-mail. He figured that they would have an answer. I sent the e-mail
>identifying myself as manager of geophysics for an oil compnay. That
>usually gets me a response from the academic community. Neither author
>responded to the e-mail. My freind was surprised. Now, clearly they are not
>required to dance to my tune and answer any old e-mail I send, but the fact
>that they didn't respond to a rather serious challenge to their view from a
>member of the geoscience community on a technical topic says something. My
>friend gave up the idea when they didn't respond. And as I pointed out,
>recent article by Pitman in an issue of Maring Geology devoted to the Black
>Sea flood doesn't seem to mention the Black Sea Flood. That is kind of
>interesting to me. All the other articles in the issue were negative and
>author of the idea doesn't defend his baby. Yet you are apparently a bit
>more supportive of the concept than any of the experts of late or indeed
>possibly more supportive than the guy who originated it. With respect, I
>would suggest it is dangerous always to go against the experts in the area.
>While I may know more geology than you, I am less expert in the area than
>those who appear in that Marine Geology issue. I won't contradict their
>conclusions unless I go see the data myself to see where they are wrong.
>Failing that, I will accept what those experts say in the matter.
>for lots of creation/evolution information
>personal stories of struggle
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 19 2002 - 17:39:41 EST