> What about the odd possibility that most people believe what the Bible
> says? !
>
> ICR is successful because they show that science supports recent
> creation week and Flood Catastrophe.
I appreciate (really!) your POV, Allen, for you are one of the more
articulate YECers I've encountered on the LISTSERVs.
Your first suggestion I might agree with if you'd let me add qualifiers.
Your second I have to disagree with, of course. I think my friend Dr.
Gish and his colleagues are very successful at what they do because they
know very well how to market their product. (The same comment for Dawkins
& Sagan, BTW). 40 years in the business world has convinced me that
marketing is 90% of the game -- product quality, as long as it meets
minimum requirements, is the other 10%.
I've followed ICR for over 20 years -- read about everything they had to
say, because there was hardly anyone else addressing the issues. But
their "science," and I speak here from my physics training and
experience, simply didn't add up. That's just IMHO, of course, and I
appreciate that you, and some others here, see it differently.
If I wanted to promote the YEC approach, a very literal Genesis, I think
I could do so. My starting point would be Gosse's book. I would appeal
only to "acts of God" and not to scientific data.
One question I've asked of many YECers -- what do you think of Gosse's
book? Do you endorse it? Ignore it? What? His explanation for a YEC and a
literal Genesis is unassailable.
Burgy