Re: ASA's "neutrality policy"

> However, when a YEC position is taken that the scientific community has
> come to an erroneous conclusion about the age of the earth, whether through
> deliberate intent to contradict the Bible or through other errors, then it
> is tantamount to denying the integrity of science. We do not claim that
> science is always right. Far from it. But charging the establishment with
> bias and/or incompetence carries with it a very high bar of impeccable data,
> very careful analysis, and reproducibility in several labs. Without such
> quality of evidence, there is lack of integrity. In this case, it seems
> that the ASA could and should speak out, without being in violation of its
> neutrality policy. How to do that is another matter.
>
> Does this make sense? Have I erred somewhere in this thinking?

Yes and no. Quite a number of years ago I read Davis Young's book
"Christianity and the age of the earth" That book did an excellent job of
refuting the YEC "Geologists are careless, stupid or atheists, or possibly all
three" line. I was apalled, and that book was an important element in my
pilgrimage from YEC to accepting an old earth and, eventually, common descent.
As Davis does in his book, one way to refute YEC claims about the integrity of
scientists is to describe the care scientists use in their investigations, and
to describe the peer review process (we may not like what the referee says, but
it does weed out the half-baked claims). I realize that's not as strong a
response as you're probably looking for, but I've had my ears pinned back
enough times by YEC's that I'm (probably too) cautious about strong responses.

Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
586.986.1474 (work) 248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Wed Dec 14 22:27:55 2005