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

From: Sarah Berel-Harrop <sec@hal-pc.org>
Date: Thu Jan 22 2004 - 12:35:54 EST

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:50:55 -0500
  George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:

>
>Michael -
> I am not arguing with you, nor was I trying to explore the history
>of geological
>science. My only point was that one would have to go back quite a
>way to find a period
>in which YEC was not considered marginal by scientists (aka natural
>philosophers).

Ha, fools rush in ...

ISTM George and Michael are saying different things that are
both valuable and somewhat tangential to each other, and as
a consequence are talking across one another.

George is stating, it is in a sense improper to afford
YEC equal footing with OE (anything?) because the time
in which the holding of YEC views was scientifically
feasible in light of the data available is long past.

Michael is stating, that YEC is a somewhat modern invention
that purports to be old, traditional, but in the tradition
of historical revisionism everywhere, in fact it has no
actual analogue in the real historical past and was made
up more or less out of whole cloth, and Michael further
feels it improper to validate such revisionism.

In this sense, Michael is correct. You can't 'go a long
way back' to see YEC as marginal - the interpretive
framework that underlies YEC is modern, and didn't exist
back then. It's a speculative exercise. At least I
think that is what he means.

I now step back & wait to be corrected. :-)
                        
> Shalom,
> George
>
>
>George L. Murphy
>gmurphy@raex.com
>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
Received on Thu Jan 22 12:36:23 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 22 2004 - 12:36:24 EST