>Steve Schimmrich is someone who I respect as a brother in Christ and and
>someone who has gathered excellent material on his web site (It is one I
>use as a link for my students).
Thanks.
>However, he did suggest sending folks to talk.origins While I haven't
>followed it that much, that is the last place I would send folks. It is
>my impression that forum is dominated by articulate and forceful folks
>who general would classify evangelical faith with YEC and see both of
>them as problems. This may be an overcharacterization - but it is
>clearly a forum where the scientists are talking to the layity and I
>suspect has some of the same problems that occur when scientists put on
>their priestly robes and talk to layity. I know I was not impressed
>when one of the evidences for evolution cited from that forum involved
>sloppy nomenclature that put the algae being talked about in the wrong
>division (phylum). Mind you it was just sloppiness - but that sort of
>sloppiness usually get caught in journals. What I am suggesting is that
>there does not have to be the same care used in peer reviewed journals
>so you can say things or slant them and get away with it more on a forum
>like that. Sure it may convince the layperson of the weakness of his
>arguments, but I suspect would tend to do it in a way which would not
>care if it shook up his faith. I would prefer to have people start
>reading something like Ron Numbers in God and Nature. He is a real
>philosopher of science who knows the creationists and writes well about
>their strengths and weaknesses.
A couple of things I'd like to say in reply...
First, I would distinguish between the Talk Origins newsgroup and the
Talk Origins archives. The newsgroup is an awful snakepit. I used to
participate there several years ago now but it's really gone downhill.
It's dominated by obnoxious, Christian-bashing atheists and totally
impossible place to have a rational discussion about much of anything.
The archives, on the other hand, are simply a collection of files written
by a number of people, at least one of them Christian (myself :), and
generally of very good quality.
Like all web sites, one must not uncritically believe everything one
reads. The good thing about many of the FAQs on the site, however,
is that they contain references to the primary literature which the
YEC web sites rarely do (probably since primary literature almost never
supports the YEC viewpoint). They are not reviewed papers, nor are they
meant to be or presented as such. But, for example, my FAQ on John
Woodmorappe's geochronology paper was shown to several people by me for
review including G. Brent Dalrymple -- a well-known expert on Rb-Sr
dating.
I've found that many of the people associated with the Talk Origins
web site are generally quite reasonable people even though they may be
atheists and agnostics. They did, for example, archive my FAQ rebutting
John Woodmorappe's reply to my posted critique of his geochronology paper
even though my FAQ contained a prayer (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodgeo/schimm1.html).
While I disagree with the point of view of some of the FAQs at the Talk
Origins archive, I generally find them to be quite fair and well-documented.
They also do not exist primarily to sell books and tracts as many YEC web
sites clearly do.
Can anyone who dislikes these archives (James, Allen, Art) provide me with
some specific examples of unfairness or bias in any of the FAQs? I won't say
you're wrong, since I haven't read them all, but I haven't really seen it.
- Steve.
-- Steven H. Schimmrich Assistant Professor of GeologyPhysical Sciences Department schimmri@kutztown.edu (office) Kutztown University schimmrich@earthlink.net (home) 217 Grim Science Building 610-683-4437, 610-683-1352 (fax) Kutztown, Pennsylvania 19530 http://home.earthlink.net/~schimmrich/