> Bill Hamilton writes:
>
> <<I believe I have seen retractions and corrections in Facts and Faith in the
> past. They don't seem to have the "we are infallible complex" ICR and
> other young-earth creationist organizations are prone to.>>
>
Yes, I have to agree that Ross tends to be more honest. But we should
also point out that the format of _Facts and Faith_ isn't really a place
for serious scientific discussion anyway. If they point out their
"errors" and if they point out when the science disagrees with them,
great. If they don't, just be aware it's a format used to argue a
particular position, rather than the science itself.
> And when was the last time you saw a "retraction" from the evolutionists?
> Every single problem becomes fodder for a new variation on Naturalism. The
> famous gaps in the fossil record, for example, become, presto changeo, punk
> eek! And if someone has the temerity to point out that this merely draws
> attention to the lack, Mr. S. J. Gould or his analog huffs and puffs and
> expresses discontent that "his" work should give "aid and comfort" to the
> "creationists."
Do you ever read the scientific literature? I get two scientific
journals monthly and it's loaded with refutations, corrections, etc. As
for Gould, he was right, it shouldn't give "aid and comfort" to
creationists. Creationists (primarily the YEC types) have a habit of
distorting what people say, including Gould, and also making incredible
leaps from what the scientist says to some pro-creationist conclusion.
Punk eek is no comfort to creationists because all it really does is
explain trends. Creationists have taken this to mean that there are
only gaps in the record, which is untrue. The same is true for Ager, who
stated in his book on catastrophism should not give comfort to
creationists because he know that his work would be distorted by them -
and it has been.
>
> Even the wonderful evolutionist writer G. R. Taylor, when valiantly exposing
> the lacunae in Darwinism, trembled at the thought that creationists might jump
> on this.
>
> The fear of refutation, it seems, cuts across all lines.
No, it's the fear of intentional distortion by some groups in order to
push their own political/social positions. If you don't like the fact
that scientists think of creationists this way, you really need to look
at what you, and other creationists are doing.
If creationists are ever going to get beyond this problem, you need to
police yourselves much better. Of course, how you label yourselves also
causes problems for you (just as most labels do). I tend to think much
more highly of OEC's than YEC's for a variety of reasons. When OEC's
refer to themselves as "creationists," they bring the baggage of the ICR
and others. In other words, all the problems created by YEC directly
affect all creationists. I think Ross has recognized this problem and has
worked to point out errors as they arise at least in the YEC camp.
Is there a fear of refutation? Yes and no. They have no fear of
refutation from creationists, indeed I know of nothing that was refuted by
creationists (at least in any real sense) before the mainstream
scientists. There is some fear that work will be refuted, however many,
including me, actually hope that their work will be refuted, mainly
because it will advance new and hopefully better ideas.
Tom
*****************************************************************************
*** Thomas L. Moore mooret@gas.uug.arizona.edu ***
*** Paleoclimatology Research Lab. mooret@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu ***
*** Department of Geosciences mooret@ccit.arizona.edu ***
*** University of Arizona ***
*****************************************************************************