I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG

> Actually Glenn is absolutely and utterly RIGHT on those examples of
science.
>
> Years ago c1983 I read a Journal of Geol Ed number on creationism and one
> writer said there were several grades of scientific theories;
> 1. Virtual certainty if not absolute spericity of earth, copernicanism,
> vast age of the earth , much of physics and chemistry eg. 2h2+O2 = 2H 20,
> boiling pt of water at sl is 212 deg fahrenheit etc
> 2. All but certain - evolution, realtiviey ,
> 3. very well attested
> 4 reasonable but certain doubts
> 5 tentative
> 6 apparently wacky at present eg continental drift in 1920s
>
> And then there are rejected theories of various types, from tentatively
> rejected to absolutely rejected.
>
> Lastly theories of simply no worth whatsoever e.g. YEC and its
> ramifications. Wecould call these Psuedoscience or following Gardner Fads
> and Fallacies in science.
>
> If one takes Flood geology in 1690 it was one of the best theories going,
> from 1780 or so it was being rejected tentatively at first and being
> relgated to only recent stratas and then totally rejected in any form
after
> 1850. If one takes William Buckland his understanding of deluges in the
> 1820s was "reasonable but certain doubts" by 1840 it was only "tentative"
to
> him as most rejected his ideas. As a historian of geology I have great
> respect with all types of flood geology from 1650 to 1850 even though now
> they HAVE to be absolutely rejected
>
> But modern Flood Geology is different. As put forward by McCready Price
from
> 1900 to 1960 it is simple nonsense and totally and utterly WRONG WRONG
> WRONG. And the same applies with YECs from Morris in 1961 right through to
> the farcical extrapolations of Steve Austin on Mt St Helens and the Grand
> Canyon and the RATE program
>
> There is a world of difference between Flood geol ala Morris and Glenn's
> suggestion of a major flood a long time ago - 500,000 yrs if I remember
> right. I think Glenn is wrong (pt size 6!) and if I had time would argue
> with him as I would tentatively favour the Pitman/Ryan model , but YECs
> Flood arguments are plain WRONG (pt size 6000). There is a difference. and
I
> hope people can see it. Glenn's argument I would see as either "tentative"
> or "apparently wacky at present". YEC Flood geology is simply
> "pasuedoscience" and in no way is science.
>
> The problem is How do you put this over to others especially YECs without
> being seen as blinked and dogmatic?
>
> At present I am trying to work out how to convince a YEC (computer
engineer)
> why Ackermann's digram of a "polystrate " tree fossil running through
strata
> from the Jurassic to the tertiary is utterly WRONG, false and possibly
> malicious and dishonest. As Glenn has pointed out the Mississipi can
deposit
> 5ft of sediments in a night and of course despite YEC allegations no
> geologist from 1820 has ever said this cant happen. Now I know I can
explain
> it to a local farmer with virtually no science but I am not sure I can do
it
> with someone so convinced by YEC.
>
> On a related theme to respond to William Hamilton who did not like my YEC
is
> a heresy argument. I should have said "heresy" originally meant what split
> the church down the middle into oppposing factions. YEC qualifies cum
laude
> for this, think of the witch hunts against Don Wonderly and Howard van
Til,
> and their nastiness in alleging nonYECs reject the bible dont believe in
the
> biblcal God or the atonement - all said to me recently in a public
meeting
> with these "harmless" YEC followers cheering and hissing "heretic". I will
> respond to WH
>
>
> No. The point is simply that we should not accuse someone of heresy unless
> they are really engaging in it.
> For example, the following, lifted from a post by Michael Roberts, with
all
> due respect to Michael, IMO
> accuses YEC's of heresy without cause:
> YEC is heretical for a variety of reasons;
> 1. It causes division among Christains
> So does denominationalism.
> MARGINAL COMPARED TO YEC, BAPTIST GRAHAM IS LOVED BY CHRISTIANS OF ALL
> DENOMINATIONS (EXCEPT AT BJU)
> 2. tends to demonise those who dont accept YEC
> So do certain doctrinal distinctions.
> NOT TO THE SAME EXTENT. AS AN ANGLICAN I CONSIDER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
> MYSELF AND A SOUTHERN BAPTIST MINISTER FRIEND TO BE MINOR, AS DOES HE. WE
> DIVIDE OVER BAPTISM, BISHOPS, INERRANCY AND EVOLUTION BUT CAN ALWAYS SMILE
> ABOUT AND RECKON THE OTHER IS HONESTLY SEEKING TRUTH
> 3 Uses a plethora of subchristian methods to make its case -
> misrepresentation etc etc.
> So do some doctrinal camps when disparaging other doctrinal camps
> I HAVE YET TO COME ACROSS MANY FROM GROUPS SUCH AS ANGLICANS, BAPTIST,
> LUTHERANS CALVINISTS ETC.
> 4 Uses bad philosophical and scientific argument so that it is
> pseudo-science in the common sense of the word.
> To a scientist or a philosopher this is "heresy" MOST WILL FOLLOW ME AT
> THIS POINT UNLESS THEY ARE TOTALLY COMMITTED TO A HEAVY EDINBURGH STYLE OF
> SCIENCE STUDIES OR THE LIKES OF FEYERABEND .
>
> I maintain that most YEC's are not trained in
> the sciences or philosophy, so this behavior can be characterized as
> ignorance, IS IT IGNORANNCE TO MISQUOTE AND USE SUCH POOR ARGUMENTS UNLESS
> IT IS OF THE INVINCIBLE KIND? but I'd hesitate to
> characterize as heresy in a Christian sense.
>
> 5 totally unwilling to listen to counter-arguments
> The YEC's make the same accusation of us. WITHOUT THE SAME JUSTICE
> 6 Claims that it is the only possible interpreetation for a Christian.
> So do some denominations
> MOST DONT
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Sat Dec 27 04:37:35 2003