Science in Christian Perspective
Letter to the Editor
Journal Guilty of "Snide Denigrations," "Spleenful
Hatchet Jobs," Etc.
Frank Vosler
8011 Morse Road
New Albany, Ohio 43054
From: JASA 27
(December 1975): 192
I was a little disgusted with the book review section of the June Journal
ASA.
Are you people on a holy was against your brethren of the CRS? When Aulie spent
most of his review of the CRS Biology text dealing with 18th century
ideas, this
was not serious analysis but a poorly disguised attempt to belittle
the CRS team.
His arguments throughout dealt superficially with straw men. It is evident at
several points that he is not at all well acquainted with the writings of the
CRS people.
Then these is the spleenful hatchet job on Dr. Gish's Evolution-The Fossils Say
No! Again the reviewer is very ignorant of the writings of CRS scientists. For
example, he says, "The author's criticisms of radiometric dating
is, considering
its importance for the theory, weak and biased." He follows this
with a "rebuttal"
which is blissfully oblivious of the extensive writings on radiometric dating
of such men as Cook, Morris, Slusher and others. Dr. Gish, a
biologist, does not
claim to be expert in radiology but summarily incorporates the
findings of those
who are.
It is the same reviewer (same spleen) who reviews Whitcomb's book on the Flood.
He says that The Genesis flood was "competently criticised"
in the Journal
earlier. Since I've only been reading the Journal a year I missed that. I hope
that the present review of The World That Perished is not a sample of
that "competence".
His argument on the capacity of the Ark does not come to grips with
the problem.
One must at least count gene pools-not species. And then this boner: "Old
errors are repeated without modification, such as the odd notion that
the second
law of thermodynamics is incompatible with evolution." Will your
biologists
never understand the meaning and impact of the Second Law?
The Journal ASA has dealt mostly with psychology and sociology-not
much with the
physical sciences. The attitude seems to be that all the hard science questions
were settled 10 to 20 years ago and there's nothing else to be said
on the subjects;
hence, we must move on to higher planes of abstraction and All Truth.
In contrast the CRS Quarterly is full of hard scientific output. If
you ASA people
don't get off your supercilious rocking horse and back into the harness, you're
going to lose this contest. If your science is so much better, let's see some
of it. Deal with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, geological
deceptive conformities,
missing ancestors of Cambrian fauna, improbability of chance
mechanism for chemical
evolution, polystrate trees, "cretaceous" human fossils and tracks,
the non-equilibrium of carbon-14, diminishing geo-magnetic moment,
missing meteoritic
nickel, short period comets, radiometric problems and many other
phenomena bearing
on origins and ages.
But for goodness sake read the CRS works on these subjects first so you'll know
what you're supposed to be responding to. Dr. Gordon Mills article on
hemoglobin
and abiogenesis is excellent but in no way supports the snide denigrations of
the other writers.