Re: Public perceptions of science: was Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

From: Bill Hamilton <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat Sep 10 2005 - 15:48:00 EDT

I remember when, pretty much fresh from my YEC days, I went to a seminar at
Calvin College to hear John Horner speak about digging dinosaurs. He had
developed a theory that T. Rex was a scavenger, not a predator, and he
proceeded to explain in considerable detail how he arrived at his conclusion:
The upper and lower leg bones were the same length -- not conducive to running
fast; a CAT scan of the skull revealed the olfactory lobe was much bigger than
the visual -- characteristic of scavengers; by measuring the length between
where the muscles are attached and the joints, he could estimate the strength
of the muscles, and concluded that the T Rex could only lift about 300 lbs. To
the YEC who says, "How much could we learn about what happened when no one was
there to observe", the answer was "quite a bit, by careful study." Davis
Young's book "Christianity and the age of the earth" convinced me that
geologists are a very careful lot. Again I learned that quite a bit of useful
knowledge can be gained by careful study. As an engineer, I will always be more
comfortable with the so-called "hard" sciences, but I have great respect for
geologists and biologists. But I get frustrated that my creationist friends
won't do the small amount of investigation I have done.

Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
586.986.1474 (work) 248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31

        
                
______________________________________________________
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
Received on Sat Sep 10 15:52:04 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Sep 10 2005 - 15:52:05 EDT