> Steve says:
>
>> 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.
Come off it Art, you asked why I believed many ICR people don't do science
and I gave you a concrete example of something THEY PRESENT AS SCIENCE and
which you know is indefensible. I'm not criticizing their Christian beliefs,
that's not the issue, I'm criticizing THE WAY THEY DO SCIENCE.
I am disturbed by the actions of those at the ICR, not because I've based
my faith on their evidences, quite the contrary, but because I see Christians
and Christianity ridiculed and mocked by my fellow geologists for this type of
garbage. I also feel that Christians should be scrupulously honest in their
work and I think that organizations like the ICR harm more than help the cause
of Jesus Christ by presenting these stupid so-called "evidences" for a young
earth.
>> 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...).
The tract is authored by "D. Russell Humphreys, PhD" (note how YECs make
it clear that they have graduate degrees as well), and is presented as
scientific evidence against an old earth (and I haven't even talked about all
the other garbage in that tract which has been refuted many times by many
people). If he's ignorant or naive, he shouldn't be writing tracts explaining
"science" to Christians and other Christians should not be distributing such
material. Isn't the TRUTH important anymore? Why make excuses for shoddy
research? If I published something as evidence for an old earth and it was
as indefensible as that published by Humphreys I'd have YECs jumping all over
me (and with good reason)!
>> 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.
Who cares who Burdick's "esteemed" professor was. I'm sorry, but anyone
with an ounce of common sense should realize that if you get pollen from
modern trees in Precambrian shales than PERHAPS THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH
CONTAMINATION!!! At least redo the study and guard against such contamination.
Your excuses for Burdick's work are an appeal to authority (his esteemed
professor thought it was science so that's good enough for you). Appeals to
authority may work for religious beliefs but science doesn't work that way.
You never replied to the question as to if you actually submitted your
research to the CSRQ and why it was published in Origins. The question
is relevent since it would be interesting to know if the CSRQ will publish
studies critical of YEC research.
I'm amazed at the lengths YECs will go to defend patently shoddy research
and then have the chutzpah to accuse virtually all other scientists of being
biased in their research.
- 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