>>But are we, for that reason, required as scientists to take seriously
the claims of astrology? Of a young earth view? Is there really any
substantive difference?>>
Whether there is substantive difference or not, I'll pass on that one.
Both sets of claims HAVE been taken seriously in the past by many people
and are still taken seriously today. The YEC folks probably have a more
educated population, but that's the only difference I can see.
My own position comes from J. S. Mill's ON LIBERTY which says to me to
take any new claim seriously, but also not to pursue it very far if it
fails to make sense. At the same time -- others are looking at it -- if
there be any merit in it I presume the truth will eventually out.
Vernon's numerical claims and George's SPOG claims fall into this
category. I looked at both for awhile -- both Vernon & George will say
not long enough. Life is too short for me to pursue them anymore -- but
if something new on either of t hem arises, I'd probably look at it.
Likewise, if someone I highly respected in the scientific community were
suddenly to find merit in the claims of astrology, I'd have to give it a
look. I have given this subject considerable less attention than the YEC
claims; probably less than Vernon's and George's claims, even though I've
known about astrology for probably 65 years.
John Burgeson (Burgy)
http://www.burgy.50megs.com
(science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 03 2001 - 13:04:28 EDT