> >
> >I wonder if it was really lifted from an article he cites by Slichter
> >1964 because Barnes said on page 2 of the impact article that slichter
> >said that the "the time scale of the earth-moon system still presents a
> >major problem."
>
> Given Barnes' propensity for making silly arguments and misrepresenting
> sources, I'd bet that Slichter's article doesn't support his claims, but
> is about something rather different. I don't have easy access to the
> journal in which Slichter wrote (Barnes cites this as Slichter, Louis B.,
> "Secular Effects of Tidal Friction Upon the Earth's Rotation," _Jour.
> Geoph. Res._, 1964, Vol. 8, No. 14, pp. 4281-4288. Perhaps someone
> else can look this up quickly; otherwise it'll take me a few days.
I'll see if I can find it.
>
> >well the Kelvin (that is, Barnes Impact article 16) seems to be more
> >about rotation rather than the distance to the moon.
>
> Yes, but the two things are intimately related.
>
True
> >I feel that now I have to be in the strange position of defending YEC's
> >in general. We really shoulding judge all YEC's behaviors based on
> >Huse.
>
> Of course. My comments were based not just on Huse's book, but on
> what I've read in many YEC books. On a variety of online forums I
> keep seeing references to tertiary books like Huse's, and invariably
> they are of extremely poor quality. Take a look at the very popular
> _It's a Young World After All_ by Paul D. Ackerman. It's sold in
> virtually all Christian bookstores. How about the books by Bowden,
> Kofahl & Segraves, Parker, Ham, Baugh, Chittick? Gish, Morris and
> Austin are an order of magnitude better, but are simply more
> sophisticated in communicating their misunderstandings. The only
> (apparently) YEC book I've ever read that even comes close to being
> reasonable is Marvin Lubenow's _Bones of Contention_. Many of the
> people who write ICR monographs produce better material than do the
> greater lights, but they invariably neglect extremely important
> published counterarguments. The basic flavor of this body of material
> is to poke holes in standard science wherever possible, and to ignore
> everything that doesn't fit with YEC ideas or the hole-poking. As
> Davis Young has pointed out, this is embarrassing for honest, non-YEC
> Christians.
>
I certianly agree with you here. But we should avoid blanket statements
and be more specific since blanket statements don't convince anyone.
> I initially got into this field when I started researching the 1985
> book by Jehovah's Witnesses called _Life - How Did it Get Here? By
> Evolution or by Creation?_ I was appalled to find how much the book
> misrepresented science and scientists' comments. I had to look at
> many YEC books because the JW author plagiarized many of his arguments
> from them. The book even plagiarized a book written to support a
> paranormalist view of the origin of life, _The Neck of the Giraffe_
> (Francis Hitching, 1982). The result of this research was that I
> concluded that YEC's and JWs had a fundamentally dishonest mindset
> in dealing with origins issues. Nothing I've seen contradicts that
> conclusion.
>
In general I agree with you here. Although, their motivations and views
are fairly alien to me.
> >Indeed, I think Huse's book is one of my top two absolute worst
> >creationist books, which is saying something about its quality.
>
> Which is the other one?
>
Well, Huse's book is done so badly, it's tough to find one that compares.
But, in my humble opinion:
Peterson, D.R., 1986, Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation: El Dorado,
Calif., Creation Resource Foundation, 205 p.
What's really sad is I keep hearing glowing reviews of both books by some
Christian groups - even I could suggest better YEC books! What also
bothers me is that the publisher did not demand a higher standards for
Huse's second edition (suggesting a serious lack of reviewing or editing).
Peterson's book is, from my understanding, self-published anyway.
> >However, I don't think it's really fair to accuse YEC's of poor work
> >based on what Huse did. After all, these kinds of mistakes are made in
> >all fields, not just YECs. Huse's book can stand as a horrible example
> >of this sort of thing, but beyond that, we should be cautious.
>
> Quite right. The work of most other YEC authors falls on its own
> lack of merit.
Agreed.
Tom