I recently responded to several people and an article within the last two
weeks that used the moon dust argument as the main line of argument. I
have received two responses which took somewhat different tacts that I had
anticipated. The one I quote below was from the author of an article
"Counter Culture Christianity, wimps, gimps, blackguards: Creation,
presuppositions and treason"
http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/98sep/Abshire_Wimps_Treason.html
What is the real "TRUTH" regarding the state of knowledge concerning the
amount of dust on the moon at the time of the moon landing? I suspect this
might be a case of NASA having a good story and milking it even though by
the actual time of launch they knew it wasn't going to be that big of a
problem. Has anyone researched NASA documents to get a close look at what
the thinking process was? I still find the use of the data many years
later by Morris wrong but how do I respond to this person who basically
says he doesn't care what the data is but only that it shows that
scientists don't question their presuppositions.
Any suggestions, include refs if possible since I wasn't around at the
time and can't speak with any authority myself.
Thanks, Joel Duff
begin quoted material:
>Now, in regards to the "Moon Dust" debate, First, some historical
>perspective.
>I don't know where you were in 1969 when the Apollo Lander made it's
>historic
>touch down. But like the Kennedy Assassination and other life defining
>moments, I remember watching avidly the entire event, glued to my
>TV. I grew up when "mountains of dust" was widely accepted,
>and taught in science classes in school because it was a necessary
>implication from the basic presupposition that the solar system was
>billions of years old. I remember commentators talking to engineers and
>scientists at NASA about this very problem AND I remember distinctly
>that the amount of dust the Apollo astronauts were expected to encounter
>was a real concern.
>
>Now it may well be that since 1969, there is new information, that the
>old mechanism and assumptions proved faulty. But it is sheer historical
>revisionism to say that this was NOT a wide-spread assumption in
>the 1950's and 60's. Therefore, Whitcomb, Morris, et. al., who pointed out
>the fallacy in later books were not being deceptive, or selective in use
>of evidence, but simply responding to a strain of thought that proved
>fallacious on direct investigation.
>
>But of course, the issue of moon dust is entirely tangential. The issue is
>what presuppositions guide our interpretation of the real world, and when
>those presuppositions conflict with Scripture, do we reject God's inspired
>Word, or do we accommodate to the present theory?
>
>As a PCA Teaching Elder, I am oath bound to begin with Scripture as
>summarized in the Westminster Standards. The Standards are clear,
>Genesis one is real history, the earth was created in six literal days.
>Therefore I am bound to believe and teach literal six day creation. And
>since
>this is MY presupposition, I expect to find evidence in creation that
>supports
>an early earth
>
>These are my presuppositions, what are YOURS?