Allen
I nearly didntsend this as it is contentious but we need honest argument to
get at the truth
I first read the Genesis Flood in 1971 whne at L'Abri after I came back from
working as a geologist in africa for 3 years. Initially I thought it a
powerful argument thogh it went against all my geology. However after a few
hours I started to spot misquotations and misrepresentations by the dozen. I
was given about 6 creationist books to sort me out and I soon found they
alos misquoted by the dozen. The occasional misquote I can put down to
carelessness or incomptence but I have no explanation for misquoting on such
a grand scale.
Ever since then I have found the same in every creationist publication I
read whether American or British. Consequently I do not accept any thing I
read by YECs unless I can check the sources. I have checked innumerable
sources but now if I read something which overturns something I have always
held I assume it is a misquotation and note it for future checking. When and
if I check it sure enough it is always a misquotation.
Now for non-YECs ;
Yes I have noted how often the media misquote as they did over Kansas and I
had a run-in with the New Scientist over that when I reviewed Eldredge's
Triumph of Evolution as the editor tried to alter what I said about Kansas.
(Probably lost future commissions as well) I groaned at what the British
press said about Kansas for starters and now what they do about Gateshead. I
would expect most of the examples you give of containing journalistic errors
and if I checked them out would find some of the errors - largely because
Kieth Miller has pointed out in many places what happened at Kansas and made
me check things more carefuly.
One of my bugbears are those who get their history wrong because they do not
check their sources and rely on recieved opinion.
I am sure if someone checked all my sources in my writtten papers would find
some errors but I hope they are few and far between. I have found some!!
I would suggest that all YECs go through all YEC publications and correct
the misquotations therein starting with the Genesis Flood by Morris and
Whitcomb. I think that would sort out many of the problems and heat in the
Creation/Evolution debate.
I look forward to the 2nd edit of the Genesis Flood with no misquotations
I totally agree with Glenn on this point - even if we sometimes disagree!
Glenn argues with transparent honesty and integrity which is all we need
Michael
> Glenn,
>
> One of your complaints against Creationists has been that they have
> deliberately misquoted and misled the public, especially the Christian
> subculture, about science and evolution. Me experience has been that you
> will not believe ANYTHING printed or quoted by YECs (including myself)
> unless you check the sources for yourself.
>
> Now my question is, did you check the sources of the News media and the
> press releases from scientific groups and organizations which reported:
>
> 1."elimination of evolution"
> www.wheaton.edu/acg/essays/miller1.html
>
> 2. The Kansas Board of Education rejected evolution as a scientific
> principle
> www.detroitfreepress.com/news/education/qevol12.htm
>
> 3.the Kansas State Board of Education removed biological and cosmological
> evolution from its state Science Education Standards
> www.aip.org/gov/policy7
>
> 4. Kansas Eliminates Evolution From Public School Curricula, By Carey
> Gillam, Reuters Thursday, August 12, 1999; Page A13
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A5
> 4598-1999Aug12¬Found=true
>
> 5. In August 1999, the Kansas state board of education raised a firestorm
of
> debate over its revision of high school science standards, which omitted
any
> mention of evolution.
> http://www.edweek.org/context/topics/issuespage.cfm?id=32
>
> 6.World: "Americas Kansas rejects theory of evolution"
> Opponents of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution have scored a victory in
> the United States after the board of education in Kansas voted to drop
> evolution as a subject in the science curriculum.
> The State School Board approved by six votes to four a new curriculum that
> eliminates the teaching of evolution.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_417000/417996.stm
>
> 7"Kansas restores evolution standards for science classes"
> Reversing a controversial 1999 move, the Kansas Board of Education voted
> Wednesday to restore the theory of evolution to state school standards.
> The 7-3 decision came after November elections that saw three board
members
> ousted after voting to remove Charles Darwin's theory of mankind's origin
> from public school science standards and allowing alternative theories to
be
> taught.
> The 1999 vote never banned the teaching of evolution nor required the
> teaching of the Biblical story of creation. But it dropped Darwin's theory
> from standardized tests taken by Kansas students.
> http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/02/14/kansas.evolution.02/
>
> 8. science deplores the recent decision by the Kansas state board of
> education to remove
> references to evolution and cosmology from its state education standards
> www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/issues/aaas.htm ?
>
> Or did you just assume that Evolutionary Scientists must be correctly
> reporting the facts? Did you go read for yourself the drafts and the
> approved 1999 science standards?
>
> Who can you trust?
>
>
> Allen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 05 2002 - 16:42:01 EST