>You call them "REAL" scientists yet they have a long and sad history of
presenting untruths, misquotations, and sloppy >evidence to support their
position. This has been documented by many people and in many places by the
way, if you'd like >some references.
I would venture to state that the same could be said of many who espouse
other views as well. And yes I would like to see some documentation.
>Real scientists also publish their results in peer-reviewed journals and
present their research for criticism at national >conferences. ICR
"scientists" do none of this because their research generally does not
stand up to public scrutiny (want to >talk about Steve Austin's incredibly
sloppy and amateurish radiometric dating research?).
It is my understanding that there is such a bias against their view that
they cannot get published in peer reviewed journals.
I was unaware that there were problems with Steve Austin's radiometric
dating research, but I do understand that there are serious problems and
inconsistencies in radiometric dating methods, so much so that I would put
little credence in them.
>I note how you say that those in the ICR are people "whose interpretation
of science is consistent with the priority of Scripture" >while people like
me "want the scriptures to conform to your view of science".
>
>I would phrase it differently...
>
>I would say that those in the ICR are people "who try to force science
into supporting their own particular interpretation of >Scripture" while
people like me "try to search for the truth about how the natural world
works and if it conflicts with my >understanding of Scripture, considers
that my interepretation of Scripture may be in error".
>
>Note that I said "interpretation" of Scripture. That's what we're talking
about. Not the Truth of Scripture since I believe it is >true but I do not
believe your interpretation of it is correct.
You miss a very important point here Steve, There is a science or
discipline to interpreting scripture, as important or perhaps more
important than the disciplines that you practice. And when you apply the
consistant literal, gramatical, historical method of interpretation, you
will find the science of YEC'ers to be consistant with that hermenuetic.
You on the other hand place science above the scriptures and look for
methods of interpretation that will harmonize it with your science. As
science has proven itself to be a changing source of Truth I would prefer
to base my beliefs upon an umoveable absolute - the Scriptures. I would
like to make myself clear here that in stating this I do not in anyway mean
to question the scincerety of your Christian commitment. I am simply
stating that the whole difference arises from the priority given to science
by those who hold to an old earth and the priority given to the scriptures
by those who hold to a YEC position
Pete
______________________________________________________
A member of the MacDonnell Group, an alliance of companies and partnerships
committed to providing world class technology and consulting solutions in
the Environmental, Engineering, Management, Geomatics and Computer Graphics
fields. Visit our World Wide Web site at www.mgnet.ca. where a full
corporate profile exists. Send general e-mail inquiries to info@mgnet.ca