> Dear Professor Schimmrich:
>
> In my private e-mail to you I explained the mistake Tim Thompson had made
> in the post you relayed to your net. Since you have my technical articles
> before you, you know that what I said is correct. I politely appealed to
> you, in the name of the Christ you profess, to post a retraction of your
> incorrect accusations of me, meaning particularly your implication that my
> motives were dishonest.
>
> Yet I find no word of retraction or hint of apology in your 10/8/98 answer.
> You haven't done the right thing. Instead, your posting of your answer as
> a challenge shows you merely want, like a pugnacious teenager, to score
> debate points before your friends.
>
> Your attitude puts a debate out of the question; I'm so disgusted with your
> hypocrisy that I want nothing more to do with you. If you want to post
> this, that's fine with me. It's your shame, not mine.
>
> In the Judge of all the earth,
>
> Russ Humphreys
Dr. Humphreys,
I stand by my disagreement with your handling of the data in your ICR Impact
article 242 (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-242.htm). If you, or anyone else
on this list, wishes to publicly debate this, I am willing to do so. That is,
after all, the way these things are handled in science. If you're not willing
to publicly defend your data (and not all on this list are "friends" to me, many
are young-earth creationists sympathetic to your views), then maybe people have
valid reason to question the conclusions you draw from this data. Science advances
by people peer-reviewing and defending data and conclusions, not by publishing
in periodicals set up by people pushing a very particular interpretation (and
requiring an oath supporting such an interpretation as the ICR does - refer to
http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm and keep in mind that Dr. Humphreys is
listed as an adjunct faculty member at the ICR "graduate school") and by
assiduously avoiding public debate about substantive issues (like the data you
used to draw Figure 1 in that Impact article).
Dr. Humphreys, if your data is so convincing, why not submit an abstract to an
upcoming Geological Society of America or American Geophysical Union conference.
Surely these are appropriate forums for discussing new theories about the Earth's
magnetic field. Surely these are appropriate forums for discrediting currently
accepted beliefs about the origin and evolution of the Earth's magnetic field.
Please don't tell me that such an abstract would not be accepted, since I would
ask to see a rejection letter (i.e. I think a carefully-worded abstract would
indeed be accepted). Why are ICR members quicker to expound their beliefs in
churches and pamphlets oriented toward laymen than in scientific forums before
people who are qualified to properly evaluate your claims? Afraid, perhaps, that
they'll recognize your work for what it really is?
I submit that God doesn't need people to present questionable data to defend
His Word. I submit that such tactics have just the opposite effect. By forcing
God's Word to appear to support a false premise (a 6,000 year-old Earth), you are
causing people to ridicule and reject Scripture. In my opinion, what they are
rejecting, however, is your caricature of Scripture. You are also a poor witness
for those who expect Christians to be models of integrity and honesty. A man of
integrity would stand by his data and conclusions and not be afraid to present
such to critics -- something that mainstream scientists do all the time when
submitting abstracts and papers for publication. Something that young-earth
creationists purposely avoid instead preferring church appearances and staged
debates in front of lay audiences.
- Steve.
-- Steven H. Schimmrich, Assistant Professor of Geology Department of Geology, Geography, and Environmental Studies Calvin College, 3201 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/