RE: [asa] Former YEC's on ASA and Henry Morris - WAS Denver RATE Conference

I actually have the email as my friend has saved it all these years and
forwarded me a copy. I will see if I can dig it out and get his permission
to forward it to the list.

My point was though I agree that many people in this debate on both sides
are dishonest and even deceitful, but I choose instead to focus on finding
the truth rather than reading into people's motives about what they say and
do. I think we need to be aware of it but it doesn't seem productive to me
to take it any further than that.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Iain Strachan [mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 9:37 AM
To: John Walley
Cc: PvM; Michael Roberts; George Murphy; asa@calvin.edu; Steven M Smith
Subject: Re: [asa] Former YEC's on ASA and Henry Morris - WAS Denver RATE
Conference

Hi, John,

You wrote:

On Henry Morris, I have a friend with a PhD in Nuclear Physics that got into
an email exchange with Morris a long time ago on some topic where Morris was
way over his head and which my friend cornered him and got him to admit in
an email something to the effect alleged below, that the details don't
matter if you are defending God.

That is certainly pretty dishonest, but I think that "brush details under
the carpet" is a different spin from "it's OK to lie for the Kingdom". It's
a response, certainly of willful ignorance - rather like Lisa Simpson going
"La la la I can't hear you!". The question is, what is the best way to
approach a la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you type response? Is it right to accuse
them of listening to liars straight off, or would a more softly-softly
approach be more likely to be fruitful? Along the lines of - "let's reason
about this. The detail you want to brush aside is rather important - it
overturns the whole argument. The onus is on you to show why this detail is
unimportant". Is that not likely to be more fruitful than "How much longer
are you going to listen to liars and fools?".

It's a pity that the Morris quote you mention is only available as a
recollection of a private email - if I were to report that third hand to a
Creationist, as coming from a list of Christians who were mostly TE, then
I'm sure I'd get the response "well he would say that, wouldn't he?". If it
were on the web somewhere, as a reputable, referenced source, it would be a
good thing to challenge YECs concerning honesty. In a recent post to Peter
Loose on this list, I spent some time, as you know pointing out areas where
I felt Creation Scientists were less than honest.

As regards to atheists indulging in wishful thinking, I couldn't agree more!
It seems to me that there is a philosophical commitment to "many-worlds
interpretations" in many atheist scientists that goes beyond science. How
convenient to be able to appeal to a stupid creator (the multiverse giving
rise to "anthropic coincidences"), rather than acknowledging the possibility
of an omnipotent God. The true scientist will appeal to neither as an
explanatory mechanism, and continue to search for better theories to explain
things.

Iain
 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Sep 30 09:51:08 2007