Re: [asa] On telling the truth about science

Many prominent YECs are in a state of denial rather than deliberately
lying. When you have spent a career trying to promote a version of YEC, it
is very difficult to admit to yourself that you have been wrong. I think
that all of us are capable of being in a state of denial and understand
what it is like, and we should be careful that we don't ignore the log in
our own eyes. However deliberate deception is a different matter. What
should we do in the case of Carl Baugh, who misrepresented his credentials
by claiming a lot of phony degrees?

Gordon Brown (ASA member)

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, David Opderbeck wrote:

> I don't know that the reluctance to accuse fellow Christians of lying is
> either "a generous spirit toward fellow humans" or "teambuilding." In my
> case, at least, it's (a) a concern for the unity of the body of Christ; and
> (b) a hesitancy to pluck splinters out of others' eyes before tending to the
> logs in my own.
>
> As to (a), I wouldn't disparage that as "teambuilding." I have no interest
> in supporting the YEC program and no concern about unbelievers seeing us
> engage in honest, civil debate. However, many of the regular, decent folks
> I fellowship and minister with would likely be hurt / offended / threatened
> by strong, public accusations of dishonesty against some YEC leaders. They
> will not be convinced by those accusations, and making such statements would
> hinder our fellowship and ministry. IMHO, scripture and experience are
> clear in circumstances like this: the wise and loving action is to express
> your opinion sparingly (see, e.g, Prov. 12:18: "Reckless words pierce like
> a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.").
>
> As to (b), let's say there are some hucksters out there who are actively
> dishonest in selling YEC. YEC can be a lucrative business, like many other
> "Christian"-related products. But would we also agree that most YECs --
> both professional and lay -- are not lying but rather are taking what they
> believe is the right approach to reconciling science and scripture? And are
> we also willing to recognize that none of us has this exactly right and all
> figured out? Don't we all have a few areas in which we're not completely
> comfortable with our own views? Are we secure and mature enough in our own
> beliefs to gently admonish and encourage our YEC brothers and sisters to
> consider looking at things differently, without anger or accusations? Or do
> we really think it's all about *us* and what *we *think?
>
>
> On Jan 18, 2008 1:48 PM, Stephen Matheson <smatheso@calvin.edu> wrote:
>
>> I don't see how Menton's abuse of Tiktaalik can be anything but outright
>> fabrication:
>> http://lancelet.blogspot.com/2007/03/dr-david-menton-is-liar.html
>>
>> But this is what we get when science mutates into folk science, and when
>> its purpose is not exploration or understanding, but apologetics.
>>
>> Having said that, I'm baffled by the reluctance to suggest that Christians
>> can lie. If the hesitation is a general one, born of a generous spirit
>> toward fellow humans, great, but if it's some kind of teambuilding strategy,
>> ditch it as fast as you can. (That's an overall comment, not specifically
>> addressed to Ted. Who looks like Michael Keaton, don't you think?)
>>
>> Steve Matheson
>>
>>>>> "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu> 01/18/08 1:27 PM >>>
>> I changed the heading of this thread to reflect this particular topic.
>>
>> A couple of years ago, in the wake of the Kitzmiller trial (ID), I
>> attended
>> Kent Hovind's seminar, in the auditorium of Dover Senior High School.
>> I'll
>> skip the details on how it was arranged, and who declined an invitation to
>> "debate" "Dr Dino," (not yours truly), and cut to the chase. Forget ID,
>> Hovind told the audience -- most of whom did not live in the Dover school
>> district (there was a show of hands about this during the seminar).
>> Forget
>> creationism. Forget the Bible. Just focus on the "lies" in the
>> textbooks.
>> All from a man who is now in jail on a criminal offense. Hovind still
>> likes
>> to use some of the arguments that creationists themselves say you
>> shouldn't
>> use, esp the howler about the retrograde rotation of Uranus disproving the
>> big bang. Hello? A few details would be appreciated, to help me connect
>> those dots. That one, as Pauli or Dirac or someone (I've forgotten
>> exactly
>> who) once said, isn't even wrong. He has to know that some of his stuff
>> is
>> more than out there on the fringe and entirely unsupported even by his
>> fellow YECs. He has to. I just don't think he cares. Whether his tune
>> will change after he gets out of prison, we'll just have to wait and see.
>> I
>> hope it does, literally for Christ's sake.
>>
>> The closest that most YECs come to deliberate lying, IMO, is when the
>> present the big bang as an atheists' theory. That one also isn't even
>> wrong. It's such a profound distortion of the history of the theory and
>> how
>> it is often viewed even by religious sceptics today. A profound
>> distortion.
>> It absolutely enrages me when I hear it, so I do make a big point of
>> telling my students why I get angry about that one. Here's a little bit
>> of
>> what I tell them:
>>
>> http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/EditorBigBang.htm
>>
>> On the other hand, I get comparably angry when Scientific American devotes
>> an issue to the multiverse and present it without blinking an eye as good,
>> hard science that challenges religion. Of course--with Michael Shermer on
>> board there now, they are advancing the old warfare thesis of religion and
>> science. I know quite a few people who've canceled their subscriptions in
>> recent years for similar reasons.
>>
>> Ted
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jan 18 20:15:23 2008