Re: neo-catastrophism
Arthur V. Chadwick (chadwicka@swac.edu)
Fri, 26 Apr 1996 14:41:35 -0700> 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...
Do they cease being scientists because they start arguing, or because you
don't agree with their arguments, or because you think they have violated
some principle of science by holding these positions. Certainly their
taking these positions by itself cannot be grounds for your dismissing them
from the halls of science. I assume it is because you do not care for the
methods they employ in the development of their arguments, etc.
Art
http://chadwicka.swac.edu