>> 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.
"Well other people have lied too so it's OK that my guys lie!" Is that
really what you mean to say (that's the impression such a statement gives).
Shouldn't Christians be above reproach? Shouldn't Christians be MORE honest
and careful in their statements than non-Christians? Sadly, the reverse is
far more often the case when Christians speak about science.
I don't have time to type case studies but if you're really interested, here
are some resources to get you started...
Browse the Talk Origins archives
(http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html)
for many interesting refutations of YEC claims. I would especially
recommend
the section http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html for
essays
like "A Creationist Exposed", "Suspicious Creationist Credentials",
"Creationist
Whoppers", etc.
Read "Science & Earth History" by Arthur Strahler (1987, Prometheus Books)
for refutations of almost every YEC claim.
Give me a specific claim relating to geology (my field) and I'll steer
you toward several references refuting that claim.
>> 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.
Sorry, but I refuse to accept such statements anymore. Creationists aways
claim bias and that they can't get published but every single time I ask for
a concrete example there is a resounding silence. Post a reviewers note
rejecting a YEC paper for publication in a recognized peer-reviewed journal.
I want proof that they've even attempted to publish -- I don't believe any
of the well-known YEC people even have tried.
> 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.
Have you ever read a book on radiometric dating written by a geologist? You
should look at both sides of the issue like most of us non-YEC yet Christian
people in science do (I read ICR materials as well as scientific journals
-- do
you?). I see this again and again. People who support YEC yet never look at
mainstream science.
Check out my essay on Woodmorappe's ridiculous yet widely supported critique
of radiometric dating at:
http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~s-schim/scichr/essays/woodmorappe.html
>> 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.
I strongly disagree. If you were consistent you would be a geocentrist
as another on the list also mentioned. You would believe that the sky or
firmament was solid since that is the literal, grammatical meaning of the
Hebrew word used. I could list many other examples.
> 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
I don't place "science above the Scriptures". I place the evidence seen by
my eyes when I go and look at real rocks (and the eyes of eyes of many
thousands
of other geologists as well) above a specific human and fallible
INTERPRETATION
of Scripture.
- Steve.
-- Steven H. Schimmrich KB9LCG schimmrich@earthlink.net Department of Physical Sciences Kutztown University 217 Grim Science Building, Kutztown, PA 19530 (610) 683-4437 http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/s-schim Fides quaerens intellectum