Re: neo-catastrophism

John W. Burgeson (73531.1501@compuserve.com)
29 Apr 96 18:13:15 EDT

Steven wrote: "Come off it Art, you asked why I believed many ICR people don't
do science
and I gave you a concrete example of something THEY PRESENT AS SCIENCE and
which you know is indefensible. I'm not criticizing their Christian beliefs,
that's not the issue, I'm criticizing THE WAY THEY DO SCIENCE."

The viewpoint of this lurker (to a rather interesting thread) is that you
and Art are "vigorously agreeing!

The issue appears to be how you define the phrase "do science"

Steven -- in the above you use the term "do science" in line 1 and
then "the way they do science" in line 4. So I infer that you equate the two.
Art, clearly, does not.

But you both agree (I do too) that "the way they do science" appears to be
pretty shoddy.
Art says "but that's still science" and you disagree. But that's such a minor
point!

I won't even try to take sides. Not interesting.

Burgy < G >