Re: Full disclosure (was Grand Canyon Tears America Apart )

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Thu Jan 22 2004 - 04:10:59 EST

George or Burgy wrote;
> We probably differ on whether or not "discussion" is the best approach.
If that
> means that we're to start from zero & present both YEC claims & mainstream
scientific
> views as equal discussion partners then it seems to me that we are in
effect trying to
> go back to 1800. It would mean having to retrace the history - & while
that may be a
> worthwhile approach in some cases, I don't know if it's the best way to
teach science
> for young people.
> .............................
 With YEC we are not trying to back to 1800 and before. Though before 1800
scientists had a shorter geological timescale hardly any argued for a few
thousand years, though some did between 1660 and 1700.
It is a historical myth to argue that until Hutton came along and nearly
fell in the sea at Siccar Point no one accepted long ages. Hutton was one of
many to see that field geological evidence screamed at a long time. Even
those in the 17th century e.g. Ray, Llwyd were allowing more time than
Ussher or Morris would allow.

With YEC we are going back either to McCready Price's absurd books of the
early 20th century (on whose work Morris based his) or to the revelations of
Ellen White in the 1860s and 1870s.

For me I happily go back to the excellent geology of Hamilton, Whitehurst,
Cuvier de Luc, Michell, Townson, Werner, Smith, Brogniart, Soulavie and de
Saussure from 1760 to 1800 and though all were "wrong" in some respects,
their contributions were wonderful and successive geologists have built on
their work, even if aspects were equivalent to the geologists version of
phlogiston.

So far I have found nothing before 1800 to compare with YEC, and even
Ussher's work (much maligned) is worthy of respect as it was a superb piece
of historical research for 1650.

YEC simply doesnt fit into any kind of science (whatever that is) from
2000BC until today. Consequently to even recognise it as bad science is a
mistake.

But I have no suggestions how to deal with it.

Michael
Received on Thu Jan 22 04:20:07 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 22 2004 - 04:20:08 EST