> Let me use a concrete example of why I believe that many at the ICR do not
>do real science (I like concrete examples much better than convoluted
>philosophical arguments about the nature of science)...
I have found it interesting to see the open hostility of many on this
reflector towards ICR personnel. I do not believe any of them are
"dishonest" and some of them whom I know well, are as gracious Christians as
any I know.
I hear some of the vituperations as being similar to my Father-in law's
attitude towards smokers. Like most former smokers (he smoked most of his
life, and died of lung cancer), when he had quit, he was the most intolerant
person towards smokers I had ever been around. I think some of you were
formerly YEC's and are either ashamed of it or angry because you feel you
were deceived. In fact it was your own decision to base your philosophies
on supposed "evidences" that resulted in your disappointment. This does not
justify wholesale condemnation of other Christians who are as honest as you
are, but see the world differently than you do now, but probably not
differently than you did at some time in the past. The issue is a
philosophical one, although you are not wishing to view it in those terms.
> Additionally, I have, in my possession, a little tract by D. Russell
>Humphreys called "Evidence for a Young World" [...]. The
>above statement by Humpreys is flat-out dishonest and Christians should be
>ashamed of themselves for distributing this type of material and pawning it
>off as "science."
I think it is better classified as ignorance or naivete than dishonesty
which is judgmental, and unfortunately unwarranted (It would be more
flattering to think that the man knew he was being dishonest...).
>Explain to me, Art, why the work by Burdick or Howe, et al., should be
>considered "science."
It was considered "science" by Burdick's esteemed professor, G.O.W. Kremp at
U. Arizona. Even in later years, he defended Burdick's work to me
personally as authentic. I guess that his consideration should weigh for
something. The findings of science don't have to be right, they just have
to be the results of an investigation that uses the methods of science,
which in Kremp's opinion, Burdick's work did. Since he was certainly in a
position to know, I guess Burdick's work hangs.
Art
http://chadwicka.swac.edu