From: John W Burgeson (jwburgeson@juno.com)
Date: Thu Nov 06 2003 - 10:23:40 EST
Walt wrote, in part: "There are 2 competing world views and two competing
notions of the consequences
of "the other guy's" world view. Am I the only one who can sympathize
with both sides?"
I think I can sympathize with both sides. But that is not really the
issue.
If I have a friend who believes the YEC position, and does so without
making a "scientific case" for it, IOW he holds that view, as Paul Nelson
apparently does, on scriptural grounds without claiming scientific
grounds, then I have respect for that position, and would not spend much,
if any time, opposing it.
But the issue is that almost every YEC spokesperson I know claims that
the YEC position is supported with arguments from science, and in every
case I have looked at closely, the arguments are bogus. Selective
selection of observational evidence, arguments from ignorance (God of the
Gaps), construction of elaborate alternative universe models, etc. It is
this line of arguments I find unprofessional, and, yes, unchristian. When
bogus argumentation is combined with direct inferences that to reject the
YEC claim is to be, at best, a 2nd class Christian, when this
argumentation includes direct statements that scientists who report data
inconsistent with the YEC view are liars trying to protect their
professional reputations, then it becomes not only impossible to respect
the YEC position but terribly difficult to respect the persons espousing
those views.
BTW, the web site http://www.fixedearth.com/ is one of the funniest YEC
sites I've seen so far. Another spoof, I assume.
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Nov 05 2003 - 10:26:53 EST