From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Mon Sep 22 2003 - 09:07:46 EDT
Sarah,
Offence is not really the right word --- even
though I may have used it.
I do not particularly disagree with what you say
here. But, if one were upset with Mafia, would
she be justified in verbally slamming all
Italians? That is, however, exactly what this list
does. At no point does anyone use a term like
"professional" YECs as you do herein. The issue is
not with your garden variety YEC in the first
place. It is with people like Gish and Morris who
falsify data and scientific principles. George has
said something like : "well this is site for
scientists, not just everybody". However there is
no restriction on joining or reading what is said.
You can be certain that "non-professional YECs"
read them also. Do think that it sounds to them
like _they_ are included in the criticisms? You
bet it does!
My belief is that this list should stop the
practice of belittling all people who accept young
earth and attack on a scientific plane those with
whom they are really upset. Take the scientific
advocates who push for that approach and attack
them personally. All else is just winds up looking
like bigotry in my estimation. If you want to
attack ICR, then do it! Don't generalize. If you
know a Italian pastor who is out of line, say his
name rather than group him with all Italians. Send
_him_ email, not this list.
Now Morris' books touching on entropy are pure
hogwash for example. That is not a question of
interpretation of data. His statements can shown
to be false in simple laboratory experiments. Are
there posts on ASA telling the world what a
charlatan he is? If so, great!. If not, then there
should be -- or would that not be PC? Is the
general term, YEC used because people do not want
to criticize anyone in the "large tent"?
Insofar as your objection to my description of
Dawkins as the prophet of evolution: sorry but
that is what the general (both Christian and non
Christian) public accepts. (It used to be Sagan.)
If you think that is a mischaracterization, you
talk to a very small crowd. I understand that YEC
is growing in England. We can probably thank
Dawkins for that.
Walt
Sarah Berel-Harrop wrote:
> Walter, I apologize if you found my comment
> abusive. Thatcertainly is not my intent. The
> point I mean to make is that the YEC position
> aspromoted by professional YEC'ers is simply
> inaccurate -this is an assertion I get the
> feeling you might not agreewith but let it stand
> for a moment for the sake of gettingonto the
> same page - and what's more there is a
> significantlevel of dishonesty involved in the
> literature. I mean theirdescription of the
> science, not the theological issues.See for
> example,
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
> Science education in this country is so poor
> that mostpeople are hardly capable to properly
> evaluate the claimsmade either by standard
> geology or evolutionary biologyor by
> professional YEC'rs or OEC'rs ID'rs. That's
> toobad. If lay people want to accept the
> claims, and theyare in fields or avocations
> where science is not involved,certainly there is
> not a problem. I already stated I feltsuch a
> person has no affirmative duty to investigate
> theclaims. They trust whoever told them, and
> that's fairenough. It is my feeling from
> reading Glenn's and other'sposts that you are
> making far too much of their use ofthe acronym
> YEC. I don't think they mean lay people,and you
> are objecting to their (our?) attitude toward
> thesefolks. I think they are talking about what
> I calledprofessional YEC'rs. Do you understand
> the distinctionand do you find it useful?
> Although you may still find thecharacterization
> of professional YEC'rs objectionable,if that's
> who we mean, it would inappropriate of youto
> state that we are disrepecting lay people when
> wesay x, y, z about professional YEC'rs. If
> that's whowe/they mean, it's time to restrict
> the discussion toprofessional YEC'rs, adding the
> caveat that you thinkmost YEC's are not
> professional YEC'rs. ( And Iagree that that is
> the case). I noted one unfortunate side effect,
> which is the fact oflay peoples' lack of
> understanding of or indifference tothe methods
> and accuracy of professional YEC'rs tendsto
> undermine science education because you've
> gotfolks who might have an effect but don't
> speak out aboutit and so there are fewer
> Christians criticizing the scientificerrors.
> This also lends to the sort of
> persecution/seigementality that makes Josh's
> church leaders think it's ok toequate evolution
> and atheism as a rhertorical strategy.
> Thatreally is sad, but as long as you don't have
> political activitygoing on it only affects the
> people who already buy into YEC. Going up to a
> higher level of activity. There are clergy asI
> noted who preach anti-evolution from their
> pulpits. Someof them specifically criticize
> from what purports to be ascientific basis.
> Some of them just call scientists
> Athenaworshippers and idolators trying to set up
> a secularpriesthood. These folks are not in
> theology anymore,and they should closely
> investigate the claims theyare making. And the
> example I gave on the Athenathing is from a real
> sermon, here in Houston, and Ifind it truly
> objectionable. I disagree with you if youare
> stating that I should not be critical of these
> practices.I think these practices are wrong. If
> you are goingto preach a sermon you need to do
> adequate research.If you are preaching a sermon
> that draws from asource like ICR or AIG you
> cannot have done adequateresearch because their
> material so strongly divergesfrom facts, as
> Michael Roberts earlier stated, theymisrepresent
> mainstream science. Then they tearthe
> misrepresentation down as implausible. Sorryif
> it offends you for me to say that. Finally
> you've got folks on school boards and
> beingpolitical active. Again, in my view they
> have anaffirmative duty to investigate the
> scientific claimsthey are making. With very few
> exceptions whenyou dig deeper the claims are
> rotten. It was trulysad to me to see the things
> people were saying atthe State Board of
> Education, flat-out untruths, butyou would not
> know unless you checked or hadprior knowledge of
> the subject matter. This is too long already but
> I strenuously object toyour characterization of
> Dawkins as a prophet ofevolution. Dawkins is
> one of the purveyors of somuch misinformation
> about evolution it is not evenfunny. In my more
> cynical moments I suspect that'swhy people who
> should know better like the ID'rsspend so much
> time refuting his views. Someone witha decent
> biology background reading Dawkins
> probablymentally discounts the misstatements and
> fills in theomissions. Unfortunately he is very
> popular with laypeople. I think I've quoted
> before a fellow "A lot ofintelligent people who
> know very little about evolutionlike Dawkins".
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From:Walter Hicks
> To: Sarah Berel-Harrop
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 9:53
> PM
> Subject: Re: Questions to Allen Roy
> Let me be clear, Sarah.
>
> I mention my daughter specifically to
> personalize it. I really do resent
> generalizations like Glenn's. To
> demonize YECs is to lower yourself to
> the level they are portrayed to
> represent.
>
> I am not referring to my daughter when
> I mention people who basically believe
> in a Young Earth outlook. They seem to
> represent most (but not all) of the
> parishioners in my church -- and they
> do NOT have the hostile attitude that
> most on this list portray as the norm
> for a belief in a literal Bible. They
> were simply raised on the Bible and
> take those words at face value.
> Popular literature portrays science as
> opposed to Christianity, so what can
> you expect? Expect YECs to embrace
> evolution when the Prophet is Dawkins?
> Even with that, my views are
> respected.
>
> My church has a web site that lists
> various "resources". I have been
> working for some time to get ASA
> listed and it is nearly a "done deal".
> My hope is that they will see
> intelligent discussion that makes them
> feel like they are respected as
> Christians -- and not a lot of
> criticism that makes them feel that
> they are looked upon as bunch of
> illiterate fools. The material on the
> ASA site is generally good.
>
> It is the discussions on this list
> that belittle people. My hope is
> (should the site be listed) that
> nobody hears what I have been hearing.
> In fact, if I "had my druthers', Terry
> would can any posts of this nature. I
> would love to see only intelligent and
> POLITE discussion, rather that what
> has been posted lately.
>
> The Christian message is for all folk.
> If they happen to accept what some
> call a "mother goose" outlook and
> still know the Lord, then that it is
> acceptable in my eyes -- as long as
> they are more tolerant of scientists
> than scientists here are tolerant of
> them.
>
> When ASA members learn to present the
> truth of science in a fashion that
> conveys the points without being
> abusive and in a manner that can be
> readily understood, then progress
> might be made. What I see on this list
> does meet the mail. IMO
>
> Maybe I was wrong. Perhaps ASA is
> for scientists only and I erred in
> asking that it be listed on the
> Church's web site. If anyone thinks
> so, let me know and I can reverse the
> process.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system
> (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313
> - Release Date: 09/01/2003
>
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 22 2003 - 09:07:07 EDT