First let me state that when I said:
>> YECs will ignore these questions and keep referring to Humphreys' arguments
>> for a young Earth as being valid. That's why I believe many in the YEC
>> movement are either willfully ignorant (they don't WANT to know the truth)
>> or morally bankrupt (they dont' CARE what the truth is).
I was speaking of those supporting Humphreys. I didn't mean for it to be a
sweeping generalization of everyone who supports YEC. I can see how it appears
I said that and I apologize.
However, a couple of comments are in order:
- Sometimes the truth is harsh. Humphreys' figure is a complete misrepresentation
of the data it references. That is undeniable to anyone looking at the figures.
Humphreys has a Ph.D. in physics and should know how to properly reference data.
One cannot come to any other conclusion other than that it was a deliberate
misrepresentation and, if any student of mine gave me a paper with that done,
I would give them an "F" because it's dishonest and unethical. It's inexcusable
for someone of Humphreys' background.
- I am harsh in my criticism of the YEC movement because they have a long and sad
history of this type of business. I can give dozens of examples of complete
fabrications (Joshua's Long Day story), misrepresentations (Henry Morris's moon
dust nonsense), and willful ignorance (Ken Ham's dinosaur books). These men are
supported monetarily by the Christian church and, in my opinion, do real harm to
the Gospel message by equating it with YEC in their "Creation Evangelism" efforts.
- People, like those at the ICR, who promote dishonest and misleading material are
engaging, in my opinion, in sinful acts. I feel called, as a Christian and someone
teaching science, to speak out against it. I feel sad and outraged that so many
Christians are willing to let the ends (defending the integrity of Scripture)
justify the means (dishonest presentation of material). That's not the way
Christians should operate.
> I have no sympathy with the YEC position, and many people on this list and
> elsewhere have documented the sloppiness of some YEC writers and their
> refusal to retract arguments that have been shown to be in error, even when
> the error is pointed out by someone on their "side" of the issue. But
> it is certainly possible that "many" of individuals committed to a YEC
> position suffer from a paradigm-blindness which makes it impossible for
> them to even *consider* a radical revision (Kuhn might call it a revolution)
> of their scientific position. Is this willful ignorance? Is it morally
> bankrupt? No on both counts! It may ultimately be *wrong*, but it does
> not fit your two either/or categories...not by a longshot.
I'm sorry, but you'll never convince me that "paradigm blindness" is a
good excuse for apparently copying data to show the opposite of what it
originally said. Or that it's a good reason to excuse people who do that
(as the YEC movement, as a whole, does!). Where are the outraged YECs when
someone falsifies data like this? Don't they care? Isn't truth important?
Doesn't integrity among men of God matter? YECs claim in countless books
and articles that scientists misrepresent the truth yet are deafeningly
silent when one of their own bears false witness. Why? I critique Dawkins,
Sagan, the NABT, etc. when they present their scientism as science (in other
words, it's not just YECs I criticize). Will the ICR pull this pamphlet now
that it's shown to be based on fraudulent material? Why not?
There are indeed some YEC arguments that are simply alternative (although I
believe flawed) explanations for data but this isn't a case like that. This
is outright fraud. If only the YEC crowd repudiated the fraud and blatant
misrepresentations (the deliberate misquotations that some are famous for
presenting, for example) I would have tons more respect for them.
> Here I would appeal to YECs on the list (Art, perhaps) or former YECs
> (like Glenn) to offer their perspectives. From what I have heard of his
> description of his scientific journey on origin issues, I do not think
> that Glenn, even when he was vigorously contending for a YEC position,
> was EITHER willfully ignorant of the scientific issues OR morally
> bankrupt. And from what I have read of his work, Art does not fall into
> either category.
Sorry, but I believe some on this list (without naming names) do willfully
ignore data and will argue for days about whether or not the Coconino sandstone,
for example, was subaqueous to support their global flood model yet will totally
ignore the reams and reams of evidence from all branches of geology directly
contradicting their flood geology models.
> Steve, surely you are aware of the controlling influence of a paradigm
> in a scientific research program. The YEC paradigm, even though it is
> for all practical purposes derived from the Bible, acts to both define
> and restrict the kinds of questions and problems that YECs consider
> and attack in their research (here I am speaking of individuals like
> Art who are active in research, not the layperson or pastor who merely
> reads the popular literature). While the influence of their paradigm
> may ultimately cause them to err in their science, it is certainly not
> the first example of this in the history of science. Was Max Planck
> "willfully ignorant" or "morally bankrupt" because he was unwilling to
> take the logical step (which sprang from his own work in blackbody
> radiation) of positing the actual existence of the photon? Einstein
> relied heavily on Planck's work in his interpretation of the photoelectric
> effect, and he was puzzled by Planck's unwillingness to believe in
> the "real" existence of photons.
I doubt Max Plank falsified his data, quoted other scientists out of
context, mocked other scientists from the pulpit of local churches, and
ignored other scientist's work. No comparison here with Humphreys.
Like I stated before, I didn't mean the statement to be a sweeping
generalization of all YECs at all times, just how they treat people like
Humphreys (ignore his fraud or rationalize it away as OK because he's a
Christian and means well).
> Now the YEC research program may well be a degenerating one, which is
> reduced to advocating ad hoc theories to "save the appearances" of the
> scientific data. But even this does not make all or even "many" of
> the practitioners willfully ignorant or morally bankrupt. Steve, if you
> goal is to turn brothers away from their errors, then I think a bit more
> charity and civility is in order. The truth is the truth, and should
> not be trimmed. But the kinds of sweeping, unflattering generalizations
> you have made, based as they are on the unseen motivations of those
> in the YEC movement, will not accomplish this goal. Do you have another
> goal?
You're correct in that I did make some sweeping generalizations and I
apologize for that. Yet, I also have to say that many YECs I've met in
churches do admit, when pressed, that they've never even studied science!
I call that willful ignorance. When one insists one knows the truth about
a subject yet has willfully chosen to remain ignorant about it. It would
be like me arguing with an old Rabbi over the meaning of a Hebrew word (I
don't know any Hebrew other than what I've picked up using Strong's).
Similarly for people like Henry Morris, a hydrologic engineer, telling
structural geologists that large-scale thrust faults don't exist.
Do I have another goal? Yes. I would like not to be ashamed of my brothers
and sisters in Christ when I share my faith with fellow geologists. People who
tell me "Christians are morons" or "Christians are liars" because of YEC. It's
hard to share my faith in the saving grace of Jesus Christ when other Christians
tell my geologist colleagues that they're tools of Satan for believing the Earth
is more than 6,000 years old (and yes, even I have been called a "tool of Satan"
by brothers in Christ who've read my web pages and have sent me hate-filled e-mail).
You want harsh, try reading some of the YEC web pages out there (happy to send
references to anyone interested) or YEC books like "Evolution - The Lie" by Ken
Ham with a picture of Satan on the cover.
Once again, I ask any YECs on the list:
Doesn't Humpreys appear to be deliberately misrepresenting scientific data in
this, rather clearcut, example?
Is this a way for a Christian scientist (Humphreys has a Ph.D. in physics and
can not claim ignorance) to behave?
Will YECs therefore stop using Humphreys claims in their defense of a young
Earth and repudiate his methodology here of misrepresenting data (perhaps
by calling on the ICR not to distribute this pamphlet anymore)?
Let's hear an answer.
- Steve.
-- Steven H. Schimmrich, Assistant Professor of Geology Department of Geology, Geography, and Environmental Studies Calvin College, 2301 Burton Street SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546 sschimmr@calvin.edu (office), schimmri@earthlink.net (home) 616-957-7053 (voice mail), 616-957-6501 (fax) http://home.earthlink.net/~schimmrich/