I thought I'd comment -- copying the EVOLUTION LISTSERV -- on several
of your points. BTW, I see that the ASA now has a copy of your book
ready to send out to a reviewer. The way this works, you may see a review
of it
in PERSPECTIVES about a year from now. That seems to be about the lead
time.
Apparently Steve Schimmerich and Glenn Morton also have copies -- so you
might expect comments from them -- hopefully on the EVOLUTION LISTSERV --
in due time.
Richard -- you make a key point in your arguments for your thesis that
the calcarious nodules occurring in the loess are nowhere described in
the geological literature. Indeed, if they are a widespread phenomenon,
this seems peculiar. But to assert, on the basis of this fact, that "a
whole class of geologists have deliberately suppressed evidence" does not
follow. Indeed, assuming these entities are as unusual (to geology) as
you describe them to be, I'd think that the first thing an aspiring young
geologist would want to do is put his name on them. "Petersen nodules,"
might be such a name. I look forward to having someone with expertise
address this point!
I assume from the book that there is nothing out of the ordinary as far
as the materials which constitute these objects. Just their structure
seems to you to be unusual.
You mention your arguments (ch 8) that with an assumption of your primary
thesis, a better model for comets is possible. This is an interesting
derivative, of course, but not more than that. IMHO, anyway.
It is your closing paragraph which mystifies me the most. You write: "If
you were an outspoken atheist I could understand why you might balk at
these new findings ... I should think that you would be pleased to
discover that the fossiliferous rocks can now be traced to a single
catastrophic episode...I suspect that most subscribers to the EVOLUTION
LISTSERV would have been glad to learn of these findings; I cannot
understand why you wanted to be so secretive about them."
Several issues are included in the above. As a scientist, I am neither
pleased or displeased about how the evidence lies -- it is what it is. If
I were trying to establish a theory of my own, that might well change, of
course, but in this case I am wholly neutral. As a Christian, I am
likewise neutral; my faith does not rest in any particular theory of
origins being "more true" than another. God may well have employed
evolution; He may well have "built us all last Tuesday, complete with
memories." I happen to think the first is far too simple (wimpy) an
explanation and the second unreasonable, but God is God and I am not him.
Finally, I did not try to be "secretive" about your thesis. If you did
not like my review, I am sorry about that. But I cannot describe what I
do not understand -- all I can do is describe the structure of your
arguments, arguments which can be understood and evaluated only by people
who know at least a little bit of geology.
I sent you the LISTSERV instructions; I hope you will join in.
God bless...
Burgy
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]