From: bivalve (bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com)
Date: Thu Oct 30 2003 - 15:40:33 EST
>What is interesting is that RE2 has an appendix on "Common arguments that should not be used"<
A weakness of such lists is the limited attention they receive in the YEC community. AiG-affiliated speakers were still using the moon dust argument after it appeared on the AiG website list of arguments not to use. Furthermore, the AiG website discussion of this argument claimed that the moon dust argument was no longer appropriate, thus falsely implying that it once was appropriate. In fact, data refuting the argument were available when it was first made, and it was based on unacceptable data (see Science Held Hostage for details).
>RE2 is a response to two things:(1) the PBS-TV series Evolution (2001), (2) the Scientific American cover story by John Rennie, "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" (2002). A lot of the arguments in the book are not explictly for YEC.<
Neither these nor the antievolutionary responses to them can be particularly commended. Both the TV series and the Rennie article confound science and philosophical issues. Sarfati and the Discovery Institute accept this confounding and give bad arguments against the good science featured in the two.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 30 2003 - 15:41:22 EST