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

From: George Murphy <>
Date: Thu Jan 22 2004 - 07:37:57 EST

Michael Roberts wrote:
> 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 et al -
        I knew when I wrote that that you & or Glenn would want to correct me - peobably
in different ways! But I wasn't being dogmatic about a particular date - just guessed
at ~1800 because at that time one could still accept special creation & a young earth
(relative to present estimates) & scientifically respectable. But my only real point
was that in order to admit YEC as an equal partner in scientific discussions we'd have
to go way back. How far back isn't the point.


George L. Murphy
Received on Thu Jan 22 07:40:35 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 22 2004 - 07:40:36 EST