Re: teaching evolution & creation science in public schools...

A TYPICAL YEC ARGUMENT WRONG ON MANY COUNTS. SEE BELOW.
----- Original Message -----
From: <bpayne15@juno.com>
To: <gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu>
Cc: <smburke@orion.naz.edu>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 5:44 AM
Subject: Re: teaching evolution & creation science in public schools...

In the most recent ICR (Institute for Creation Research) Impact Article 381,
John Baumgardner opened with: "An ongoing enigma for the standard geological
community is why all the high mountain ranges of the world-including the
Himalayas, the Alps, the Andes, and the Rockies-experienced most of the
uplift to their present elevations in what amounts to a blink of the eye,
relative to the standard geological time scale. In terms of this time scale,
these mountain ranges have all undergone several kilometers of vertical
uplift since the beginning of the Pliocene about five million years ago.
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? THAT IS ONLY 5000 METRES OR 10000 METRES IN 5000000
YEARS I.E ON AVERAGE A MILLIMETRE OR FEW A YEAR.AS EARTHQUAKES WILLGIVE A
DISPLACEMENT OF METRES THERE IS NO PROBLEM.

 This presents a profound difficulty for uniformitarian thinking because the
driving forces responsible for mountain building are assumed to have been
operating steadily at roughly the same slow rates as observed in today's
world for at least the past several hundred million years."
THIS IS TYPICAL YEC MISREPRESENTATION ( OR LIES IF YOU PREFER). WHY DO YECS
CONTINUE TO MISREPERESENT IN THIS WAY. SO-CALLED UNIFORMITARIANISM (LARGELY
A PERVERSE CONSTRUCT OF YECS) HAS NEVER NEVER NEVER ARGUED THIS AND IS
REJECTED BY LYELL IN THE PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY

Baumgardner also discusses the plane surfaces that existed before the
mountains rose, and offers a mechanism to drive the uplift. Of course, it
all supports Flood geology.
WHY CONSIDER IT WHEN THE REST OF B'S ARGUMENTS ARE FALACIOUS?
  The complete article is at:
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=icr&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3Dd985050511a264a2%26clickedItemRank%3D1%26userQuery%3Dicr%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.icr.org%252F%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSCPToolbarNS%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.icr.org%2F

So, is it OK to teach science that supports the Bible, or should such data
be rejected?
OF COURSE BAUMGARNDENR AND ALL THE TYPES AT ICR AND AIG SHOULD BE REJECTED
BECAUSE THEY ARE INCAPABLE OF PRODUCING ANYTHING LIKE SCIENCE EITHER IN
CONTENT OR HONESTY.

Gordon Brown wrote:

Stephanie,

I believe that in teaching science one goal should be for the student to
understand not just what scientists believe but why. Rather than being
dogmatic, presuppositions should be admitted and unanswered questions
mentioned. The student can decide for himself whether he agrees with the
presuppositions and follows the reasoning.

Scientific creationism (flood geology) might better be covered in a course
in history. I don't want it taught anywhere because people assume that it
must come from the Bible, and when they see that it is not true, they
assume that the Bible is not true. Flood geology was developed by George
McCready Price, a Seventh Day Adventist, whose ideas can be traced to the
writings of Ellen White, and its main thesis cannot be reconciled with the
Bible in any credible way.

Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395

___________________________________________________________________
Speed up your surfing with Juno SpeedBand.
Now includes pop-up blocker!
Only $14.95/month -visit http://www.juno.com/surf to sign up today!
Received on Wed Mar 16 06:29:42 2005