Stephen Jones replied:
>Actually they don't, at least not in the exact sense you mean. For
>example, Baker (a Creation-Scientist) says:
>
>"In fact, the column presents a number of problems to those who wish
>it to support evolutionary theory. First, contrary to popular belief,
>all the levels can RARELY, if ever, be found occurring together"
>(Baker S., "Bone of Contention", 1976, Evangelical Press,
>Hertfordshire, p15. emphasis mine).
>
>The issue seems to be one of semantics. What Creation-Science seem
>to be claiming is that the entire idealised STANDARD geological column
>model "does not exist anywhere on earth":
>
>"The STANDARD geological column has always been assumed to exhibit >the
>evolution of life, from simple to complex, over the geological ages.
>Creationists, on the other hand, have insisted that this standard
>column is LARGELY artificial." (Morris H.M., "Scientific
>Creationism", Second Edition 1985, Master Books, El Cajon CA, pxi.
>emphasis mine)
>
>"If one wishes to check out this STANDARD column..where can he go to
>see it for himself? There is only one place in all the world to see
>the standard geologic column. That's in the textbook!..This standard
>column is supposed to be at least 100 miles thick...representing the
>total sedimentary activity of all the geologic ages...The standard
>column has been built up by superposition of local columns from many
>different localities." (Morris H.M. & Parker G.E., "What is Creation
>Science?", 1987, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, p230,232. emphasis
>mine).
>
These guys are wrong. I documented 22 basins around the world where the
entire column exists. What S. Baker says is incompatible with what you are
saying. She says the all the levels are "rarely, if ever," found occuring
together. Simply not true.
The only people who believe in your STANDARD geological column are the guys
at the Institute of Creation Research. I have never heard anyone in my
business refer to it. Some guy a long time ago wanted to find out what the
maximum amount of sedimentation which had occurred throughout geologic time.
He looked around the world and found the maximum thickness of sediment for
each period. That maximum was around 100 miles thick. But this was NEVER
taught as some sort of STANDARD column. Nobody expects that everywhere on
earth throughout all geologic time that the sedimentation rates were the same
and pegged out at the maximum rate. The Mississippi River deposits a whole
lot more sediment at a much faster rate than does the puny Potamac River in
Washington D. C. Only Morris believes that anyone in geologic science holds
to this standard column.
It is truly sad that one man can produce so many misunderstandings
among the laity.
Stephen wrote:
"
This is a non sequitur. The geological column and the fossil record
are two entirely different things. One can be wrong on one thing and
right in another. Besides there is a subtle shift in your argument
from intellectual error ("wrong") to moral error "tell you the truth".
Creation-Scientists may be wrong, but it does not follow they do not
endeavour to tell the truth, at least as they see it."
You are reading into my statement a moral content which was not intended.
While it is true that one may be correct on one issue and wrong on another,
lots of errors in an area once knows well ought to make one be more careful
about accepting information in another subject. Everyone makes mistakes and
gets things wrong from time to time. But I have not found very much of what
ICR says in any area of geology which is correct factually. Thus I am very
suspicious when they say things about other areas of science outside my
expertise.
I wrote:
GM>These apologetical books tell me that the rocks were deposited
>very, very rapidly in a global flood. Last Friday, the geologist I
>work with loaned me a oil well core from his personal
collection...The core came from about 7,000 feet deep in southeastern
>Colorado. It was 1.3 inches high and showed 9 layers of grass
roots...The apologetical books won't tell you about things like this!
Stephen wrote:
>Well again, is this correct? I do not believe scripture requires a
global Flood, and I think Flood Geology is wrong, but there is no
doubt that Creation-Science attempts to grapple with the fact of
vegetation found at different levels. For example, Whitcomb &
Morris' "The Genesis Flood", has a section entitled "Buried Forests"
(pp418-421). I disagree with their explanation ("later stages of the
Deluge and perhaps post-Deluge events" p419), but that does not mean
they do not give an explanation.>
Well, O.K. I will back down my contention a notch on this one. They do
attempt to explain fossil forests, but these are objects on the surface of
the earth. What they don't tell you anything about is the vast amount of
data found in oil wells from deep in the fossil record which would be in the
middle of their flood year. How can grasses keep growing in the middle of
their world wide deluge?
Stephen wrote:
<"This is patronising to us laymen. We may not be scientists, but we
do have reasoning powers too, Glenn! <g> One could equally argue
that scientists are all trained under a materialist-naturalist model,
and this could predispose them to accept evolutionary arguments that
laymen can see flaws in?>
I have already apologized to Jim Bell whom I said it too. If you need an
apology also, you got it. I should not have said it in the way I did. I am
truly sorry. Please forgive me.
.
But the second half of your complaint raises an interesting issue. You feel
patronized when I said what I did. How do you think the scientist feels when
Christians continuously do charge theym as being so steeped in naturalistic
training that they no longer have objectivity? Do you think they might feel
the same way you did? The plain fact is that we Christians do indeed
constantly charge them with horrible things.These statements below act like a
vaccine immunizing the Christian laity from having to believe anything that a
scientist might say against the view of the apologists. After all, if
scientists are biased, liars, conspirators or unethical, why do we have to
believe anything they say? Where is the love our Lord said we should have
for scientists? After reading these, remember, I don't see any Christians
telling their brothers to tone down this rhetoric.
***Being biased:
"Evolutionists begin with the assumption that evolution is true, and from
there
they gather data and assemble charts to fit this preconception. Facts
counter to the geologic column are considered in error, explained through
geologic mechanisms like faulting or thrusting, whether or not there is
supporting physical evidence, or simply shelved as quirks of nature."
(Randy Wysong, Creation-Evolution Controversy, 1976, p. 392 cited in
Kitchners Abusins Science 1982, p. 121)
and
" Making evolution one of the 'Big Ideas' of science could only be proposed
by philosophically biased scientists who have decided they want their
viewpoint to dominate, not because it has any value in science education or
proof in empirical science."~Richard B. Bliss "Science Education - Its
Methods and Purpose," Impact, April, 1989, p. iii.
and
"The fossils provide much more discouragement than
support for Darwinism when they are examined objectively, but
objective examination has rarely been the object of Darwinist
paleontology." ~Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, (Downer's Grove:
Intervarsity Press, 1993), p. 86.
*** conspirators:
"Why are scientists so outraged because
some people take an anti-evolutionary stand? Why do they not just ignore
those who differ from their mechanistic views? But it is not so. To them
catastrophism and teleology are fighting words. This attidude is unscientific
and it seems to be part of a larger conspiracy aimed at the denial of a
personal God, and particularly at discounting the atonement of Christ."
Bolton Davidheiser, _Evolution and the Christian Faith_ (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1969), p. 288
**** liars:
"To claim that Miller has provided the first step for spontaneous biogenesis
involves a willful misleading of the uninformed general public in the
interests
of biased materialistic philosophy. The facts are purposely concealed in
order to render plausible a materialistic philosophy of life. Thus science
is
manipulated in the interests of popular materialistic philosophies."~A. E.
Wilder-Smith, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution, (San Diego:
Master Books, 1981), p. 22-23
****willing to compromise personal and professional integrity:
"The entire scientific community has accepted the great age of the universe;
indeed, it has built all its science upon that supposition. They will not
give it up without a fight. In fact, they will never give it up, even if it
means compromising their reason or even their professional integrity, for to
admit creation is to admit the existence of the God of the Bible." Paul M.
Steidl, _The Earth, The Stars, and The Bible_ (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and
Reformed , 1979) p. 94.
While I should not have said what I said it is indeed ironic that we
Christians get our hackles up for a patronizing statement!
glenn