> Steve says:
>
>> Scientists at least make an effort to be objective (even
>> if total objectivity for humans is practically impossible) by having peer
>> review systems and publishing discussions and replies in journals to papers
>> that are controversial. Creationists do not even make an effort to be
>> objective since they start with a fixed, immutable belief in the way things
>> occurred.
>
> This statement I hope does not represent the level of objectivity you
> practice in your science. How can you lump ALL creationists over against
> ALL scientists?
> Are creationists all incapable of being scientists? That would be a strange
> definition of creationist.
I am guilty of being imprecise in my terms. If you read my Web pages, you
see that I refer to myself as a creationist since I am a Christian and I
believe that God is the creator and sustainer of all things. I meant YEC,
specifically ICR members, when I used the term and I apologize for not making
that clearer.
Creationists certainly are capable of being scientists, unless they start
arguing that there are no Precambrian metazoan fossils (like Gish), that the
second law of thermodynamics proves evolution wrong (like Henry Morris), that
the depth of moon dust indicates a young earth (like Barnes), that the Grand
Canyon can be compared to gullies in Mt St. Helens ash (like Austin), that
dinosaurs were vegetarians (like Ken Ham), etc. ad nauseum...
- Steve.
-- Steven H. Schimmrich Callsign KB9LCG s-schim@uiuc.edu Department of Geology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 245 Natural History Building, Urbana, IL 61801 (217) 244-1246 http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/s-schim Deus noster refugium