All of us find threads that are not personally interesting and I trash them
rather than read them and would suggest anyone that finds this
uninteresting do the same.
What I find fascinating about the loess business is the parallel with the
way I behaved as a young-earth creationist. To me this is an interesting
phenomenon when someone claims that evidence proves a point, offers the
evidence but won't listen to other peoples evidence. The whole thing is a
study in why people allow a belief system to over-ride all contradictions.
For instance both YECs as well as Janet and Joseph reject
uniformitarianism. Joseph wrote:
"> Surely you understand that one cannot reasonably offer uniformitarian
>theory in defense of uniformitarian geology. Your burden is to explain
>nature in terms of uniformitarian theory, and that burden is indeed
>yours, not mine.
and Janet wrote:
"I've been convinced for many years that the uniformitarian reconstruction
of antiquity is grievously in error so I was glad to read Petersen's
argument carefully from the beginning."
Similarly YECs say of Davis Young's book:
"The book made it obvious, however, that it was not because of his Biblical
exegesis that he had capitulated to uniformitarianism, but the other way
around." ~ Henry M. Morris and John D. Morris, Science, Scripture, and the
Young Earth, (El Cajon: Institute for Creation Research, 1989), P. 6.
when Janet first came here she wrote:
"Some of this material is over my head, the
Appendices notably, but most of it seems clear enough.
In particular, there is no doubt in my mind that Prof.
Mastropaolo was exactly correct; the author's evidence
in favor of an added dimension of space is indeed
unassailable."
So, inspite of admitting that she didn't understand part of it, she still
is certain (she has 'no doubt') that it is true. Where did this belief
come from? Not the Bible, it doesn't have a discussion of the 4th
dimenstional space.
Similarly, YECs acknowledge that they can't explain things yet continue to
believe what they do.
"But this is not the important thing. I again acknowledge that there are
many, many problems in geology for which we do not yet have adequate
answers in terms of the Biblical framwork, even though we can at least see
in a general way how many of the data can be reinterpreted to correlate
with it. There are even more serious problems, on the other hand, for the
dogmatic evolutionist and uniformitarian." ~ John C. Whitcomb, Jr. The
World That Perished, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973), p. 127
She then set the stage for the rejection of any counterevidence,
"In regard to the
obvious lack of sympathy displayed by the geologists
who have spoken so far, one has to understand that
they have a vested interest in the status quo. Their clain to expertise is
at stake so they are more interested in preserving that than letting truth
prevail. I, too, would like to hear from others with more expertise than
I--in physics especially, but I am particularly anxious to hear from
someone who can discuss the problem soberly, addressing the evidence
forthrightly and not gallery."
Geologists are not to be believed, regardless of what they say. Yet she
claims she wants evidence from those with more expertise. But apparently
not those who are expert in geology.
This is entirely consistent with the YEC statements:
"The entire scientific community has accepted the great age of the
universe; indeed, it has built all its science upon that supposition. THey
will not give it up without a fight. In fact, they will never give it up,
even if it means compromising their reason or even their professional
integrity, for to admit creation is to admit the existence of the God of
the Bible." Paul M. Steidl, _The Earth, The Stars, and The Bible_
(Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed , 1979) p. 94
She then wrote:
"Those who are not so convince ahead of time might well be unwilling to
give it that kind of attention. Apparently Messrs. Morton and Schimmrich
were unwilling to do so."
Compare this to what Bliss says:
Making evolution one of the 'Big Ideas' of science could only be proposed
by philosophically biased scientists who have decided they want their
viewpoint to dominate, not because it has any value in science education or
proof in empirical science." ~ Richard B. Bliss "Science Education - Its
Methods and Purpose," Impact, April, 1989, p. iii.
She then says:
"Although I am persuaded that Petersen is fundamentally correct I
would certainly like to see a careful and sober assessment of his thesis by
someone more expert than I in these matters. The key words here are, of
course, "careful" and "sober"."
Where does this certainty come from? She appears to only want confirmation
of her already accepted belief system. And this is where the YEC situation
becomes most similar. They and I when I was one, only wanted confirmatory
evidence not disconfirmation.
When asked to explain the data, she stated:
"Why in the world would you ask me these questions?
We are considering here a bizarre phenomenon, the cause of which is
obscure, and one which does not conform to reason or abide by the normal
laws of physics. Therefore, I will not accept the burden of explaining any
of these things."
She has set the boundaries around her epistemological space which requires
that the only acceptable explanation be 'bizarre' and contrary to the laws
of physics. No explanation in conformity with those laws will be accepted.'
This also is what YECs do:
"If the flood really did occur, as the Bible clearly teaches, then it
necessarily follows that many or most of the geologic formations must have
been caused by the flood. We had tried to show how the geologic data could
be interpreted this way, but we repeatedly stressed that our geological
conclusions were tentative, subject to modification through further
research, provided only that the basic Bible teaching of a global cataclysm
not be changed." ~ Henry M. Morris, A History of Modern Creationism, (San
Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984), p. 169.
The only difference (and it is an important difference) the YECs at least
have the Bible as an authority for their belief, Petersen and his followers
(2 to date) seem to have no reason for their belief other than their
knowledge of Petersen.
And then the final divorce of her epistemological system from the
observable world takes place when she says:
"He then challenged me to explain that fact in the light of Petersen's theory.
Well, of course, I can't. I would question the evidence instead."
Morris says:
"Regardless of the scientific aspects of this question, however, no
unresolved scientific questions should be allowed to call into question the
clear teaching of the Word of God - not at least by professedly
Bible-believing Christians such as Davis Young and his colleagues. These
men recognize and acknowledge that the plainly intended revelation of
Scripture is that of a literal six-day creation and a later
world-destroying deluge. It should be their duty and goal, as well as
ours, to resolve the scientific data in the context of Biblical revelation,
not to seek means of distorting Scripture to fit evolutionary theories." ~
Henry M. Morris and John D. Morris, Science, Scripture, and the Young
Earth, (El Cajon: Institute for Creation Research, 1989), P. 22
So, having ruled out any explanation that fits within normal physical laws,
and admitting that her explanation doesn't fit the data because she can't
explain it, she continues to believe what she wants to believe. Yet while
questioning any contrary evidence she then tries to USE evidential data to
support her side by citing the gravels. But she never sees the
contradiction that she only questions what is against her view but never
what is in favor.
And this is what the YECs do, what I did when I was a YEC.
And I would add that old earth creationists who insist that humanity
(imageo dei) can't be older than 100,000 years old fall into the same
pattern of ignoring observational data as does Joseph, Janet, and the YECs.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm