Comment on George's post

George wrote: "IMO we've reached a point with the age of the earth at
which ASA's position of not taking an official stance on disputed matters
no longer applies.
There is no scientific dispute about the order of magnitude of the age of

the earth. The ASA should take the stance - & take it forcefully - that
the
earth is billions of years old, and that supposedly scientific claims to
the
contrary are without merit."

I find myself of two minds on this. Help me. Maybe that's because I once
entertained some of the YEC claims seriously. How would such a position
be phrased?

Bill commented: "The alternative is to compromise our integrity as
scientists."

I generally agree with Bill, but I don't here.

Dick posted: ""The ASA attests and affirms that certain matters within
the realm of
science can be established beyond reasonable doubt. One of these is the
age of the earth which can be calculated presently to beyond 4 billion
years. A preponderance of data and evidence has been established from
many areas of science that substantiate earth age. As to the manner of
creation, the appearance of life, and the mechanics of life processes,
these can be items of continual discussion and lively debate within the
organization until such time as these too may become settled.""

OK, but somewhat lengthy.

How about this variation:

"We claim that certain matters within the realm of
science are established beyond reasonable doubt. One of these is the
fact that the earth is old; its age is presently calculated as over 4
billion
years. A overwhelming preponderance of evidence exists that
substantiates this."

Randy commend: "I'm not convinced that we need to take any stand on a
scientific result. Once we start, where does it end? Do we also need to
endorse quantum
mechanics? Newton's laws? plate tectonics? anything else that isn't
disputed in science but is disputed by some religious organization?"

I disagree, only because the young earth claim is so well established. I
see your argument here as that of a "slippery slope." Not everything that
could be said needs to be said.

Randy also posted: "I think it is incumbent upon us to aggressively
insist on a
"commitment to integrity in science." That means we need to take a stand

against the dishonesty of representing that science has shown the
validity
of a young earth when, in fact, the opposite is true."

I agree 100%

Then George said: "There are times to be subtle & pussyfoot & times to be
utterly blunt & this is one of the latter cases."

Again, 100% agreement. Well said, George.

Burgy
Received on Mon May 22 17:33:30 2006