Was Re: Ostrich eggs a proof of the YEC position
-My position
-not yec
-ID is bad science (see previous note to Dick)
-accept Fact of Evolution ie descent with modification (in general),
unsure of Theory of Evolution
-origin of life, unknown
Have not found Scientific Amer like the recent one on physics that
points out the problems
-infact vaguely remember Dawkins or Gould (I think) suggesting that
problems in ToEv should not be published
-may have missed as I personally find biioogy and bio chemistry
extremely uninteresting but try to read some due to origins debate
Ev allows one to be an intellectually fullfilled athiest....
Not clear to me how much effect their is on the life sciences but in
some measure like yec I don't trust.
Even in physics did not Hoyle hang onto the steady state universe
somewhat for metaphysical reasons?
Am suspicious of multiverse for the same reason.
send to various people before posting.
Robert Schneider wrote:
> Does anyone know if someone has done a rhetorical analysis of
> "conspiracy language" used by YEC propagandists? Like the passage
> quoted below:
>
>>> You’d think this would be front-page news in science magazines, but it
>>> wasn’t. Why not? It’s obvious that many of these magazines aren’t
>>> concerned with finding the truth; rather, they tend to defend only
>>> already-held beliefs.
>
> Keeping the truth from the public is a canard so commonly used by
> these folks that I usually skip the paragraph. But it might be useful
> to do a study of it and expose the technique.
>
> Come to think of it, the passage above is a perfect description of YEC
> writings.
>
> Bob
>
>
Received on Tue Apr 4 15:40:37 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 04 2006 - 15:40:37 EDT