Folks,
I was looking at the archives and read a few of the posts about Rennie's
editorial against "Creationist Nonsense"
One of the posts had a link to Sarfati's response. While Jon may have a
legitimate point in showing the bias that Renne has to Christianity and
especially Creationism - there is no cause to slam him as he does for
only having a Bachelor of Science. Too often we engage on attacks of
the credentials of the person and not the argument of the person. While
Jon's credentials are good, as a group YEC have more than one leader
that has credential that are not that great. But what we should look
at is the arguments and perhaps the science of the person. On this
list, I respect Glenn for his reading and command of the anthropology
literature - although as far as I know he has no advanced degrees in
that area. There are others on this list whose credentials are in
physics yet they can make sense in arguments about evolution because
they know a bit about science not because they research or have
credentials in the area.
I suspect Rennie's article was a bit of a rant and I might agree with
some of Jon's points but he turned me off when he attacked the man for
having no more than a bachelor of science. Maybe ad hominen attacks are
effective but I hate them and think they violate Christian methods of
argumentation.
-- James and Florence Mahaffy 712 722-0381 (Home) 227 S. Main St. 712 722-6279 (Office) Sioux Center, IA 51250
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 18 2002 - 19:32:52 EDT