From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Sat Oct 04 2003 - 14:39:21 EDT
>From: John W Burgeson <jwburgeson@juno.com>
> Robert wrote: "While the rhetoric appears to be very strong with this new
> work and will likely be even more effective with the masses, I would
> imagine that the strategy could potentially be quite devastating to
> creation science if they are shown to be clearly wrong. "
>
> I hope so, but I'm not hopeful. They used (1) moon dust and (2) Paluxy
> footprints and (3) declining magnetic earth's field arguments very
> strongly back in the 60s and 70s and when they were discredited, they did
> not appear to lose any strength. People have short memories and there is
> always a new crop of naive young people coming along who are easily
> swayed by snake oil.
John,
Twenty years ago I was actively engaged in examining typical
creation-science arguments for a recent creation. Each case that I examined
carefully led me to the same conclusion: highly selective and idiosyncratic
use of data; no scientific case whatsoever. I am no longer interested in
spending my time debunking YEC (Young-Earth Creationism) claims for
scientific support for their position. Other persons are welcome to do so if
they wish.
Nonetheless, I remain interested in understanding the YEC community as an
interesting human phenomenon within the larger framework of religious
community dynamics. Two questions:
1) What do you (and other critics) think are the key concerns that lead good
and intelligent people to support a YEC position in spite of its scientific
shortcomings?
2) What do supporters of YEC see as its most important religious function?
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 04 2003 - 14:42:22 EDT