Re: How Did Gentry Get Published in PSCF?

May I suggest that all read the PSCF on the origins of the ASA - DEc 1991
vol 43 number 4 with excellent articles by Kalthoff, Hart,and Haas, with a
totally humourless article on Jonah and the Whale by Ted Davis although as a
perverse Englishman I found it hilarious. Most should be on the web.
It is fascinating to compare the origins of theASA from 1942 with its
British counterpart then the RSCF now Christians in Science.
Much of the ASA activities were about Flood Geology and evolution, whereas
these were not an issue in Britain where no one opposed geology and most
accepted some kind of evolution.

I take Alan's point about civility but I am afraid YECs preference for
nonsense and distortion makes that exceedingly difficult along with their
continual charges of heresy and compromising.
Clearly dialogue is essential as Ted has argued for a long time but how can
one do it?

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mccarrick Alan D CRPH" <MccarrickAD@nswccd.navy.mil>
To: "'ASA List'" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 1:14 PM
Subject: RE: How Did Gentry Get Published in PSCF?

> Dick Fischer wrote:
> >I got only a few paragraphs into Gentry's article on "Collapse of Big
Bang Cosmology" in this month's issue of "Perspectives" when it hit me, this
guy is an idiot, and a >YEC to boot! What happened to peer review? Are Gish
and Morris on the peer review panel for ASA? What gives? Who's next, Ken
Ham?
>
> Dick,
> I had mixed feelings when I saw Gentry's article in the context of a
debate in PSCF. I have not finished reading through his article nor the
surrounding articles so I must reserve my specific questions, but I was
curious about his major complaint that there is an overall violation of
conservation of energy in the universe's expansion. That is a question I had
never heard before and it deserves some thought. I wonder whether overall
gravitational potential energy or something more subtle like vacuum energy
is the solution. Perhaps the question is not valid due to some
misunderstanding of the processes.
> My more general reaction involves these points:
> 1. I regret the general inability of YECs and OECs, TEs to talk civilly.
(We had a civil discussion last year at our Eastern PA ASA meeting at
Eastern University.) I have felt this conflict personally. This leads to
hardening views and loss of fellowship which leads nowhere. A first step in
healing these divisions may be to take to first civil steps ourselves.
> 2. I regret the complete separation of YECs from the ASA somewhere in the
60's-70's. I've read a little of the history and there seems to have been
the same lack of civility at that time on both sides. It may indeed be
impossible for Christians with these strongly differing views to be members
of one group. Certainly the ID world has chosen to try to court the YECs
while excluding the TEs. It seems that they get along only by closing their
eyes to real differences (like Behe's acceptance of the age of the world and
"common descent")
> 3. I appreciate seeing some of the issues discussed (again and again
perhaps) because newer members have not gone through them before. Of course
we shouldn't go through totally reinventing the wheel every generation.
Since I am a teacher, I am more accustomed to starting over again each year.
> 4. There seem to be certain patterns to YEC writing: "I have made this
great discovery," "everyone else is blinded by their denial of the Bible,"
"my findings cannot be disproved," and "modern science will now collapse."
I'm generalizing, but I've seen it before.
> 5. Leaders of most movements tend to become insulated from beneficial
criticism and begin to see the world in black and white with simple answers
(their own ones of course).
>
> Alan McCarrick
>
>
>
>
Received on Fri Dec 10 04:17:30 2004