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

From: George Murphy <>
Date: Sat Jan 24 2004 - 19:13:02 EST

John W Burgeson wrote:

        On a wider scene, let the YEC scientific arguments be heard (and properly
> refuted) wherever possible. Magazines, newspapers, etc. Whenever a
> scientific matter is discussed, the YEC argument against it needs to be
> stated, and refuted. Scientifically.

        This would be good if it could be done. I wonder how it could be carried out
in practice. The news media often carry stories about discoveries of fossils,
cosmological data &c with a statement that the thing in question is X million or billion
years old. Obviously these age estimates are simply those given by the scientists doing
the work or their spokespersons who don't bother to take seriously - if they even think
about - YEC objections.

        How would YEC objections be dealt with? Should scientists reporting such work
say "Well, our estimates of the age of this layer are about a hundred million years but
there are some people who would say that it can't be more than a few thousand" - and
then explain why that's not so? Should reporters invite YEC spokespersons to comment on
such discoveries? If so, how would their claims be refuted within the context of a news
report? To what extent would it be appropriate to turn every news story of such
scientific work into a debate about its significance? How would we get reporters &
their media to do this?
> My point is simple. The gov't has no standing as a "person" to declare
> any piece of science either bogus or holy writ. It has, as an
> organization, to use current knowledge, and the arguments for/against any
> idea, in a responsible way. In many cases that means direct and forceful
> refutation of certain claims................
        OK, the govt can't officially say "The US govt believes that diseases are caused
by bacteria & viruses & not by invisible demons" but the appropriate govt agencies can
hold that view defacto & proceed on that basis - including the enforcement of public
health measures.
        This seems a rather fine distinction - aort of like the rule in the Middle Ages
that clergy couldn't carry swords in battle because they weren't to shed blood, but that
they could use a mace because it didn't shed blood.


George L. Murphy
Received on Sat Jan 24 19:17:58 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jan 24 2004 - 19:17:59 EST