Bill Payne wrote:
>Since you mention what my field of geology looks like, let me try to shed
>a little light on why it looks like it does. When scientists attempt to
>present data which is outside of the prevailing mainstream of thought,
>there is a strong undercurrent to suppress the data.
I've heard that. It's totally amazing that science has progressed at all in
the last 200 years.
>In 1996 I was the editor of the Alabama Geological Society (AGS) News,
>and innocently contacted Robert Gastaldo, geology professor of geology at
>Auburn University, to see if he would write an article defending the
>swamp model of coal, and said I would like to have a parallel article by
>Steve Austin defending the floating mat model. This is the way I thought
>science was supposed to work.
>
>Bob informed me that if the name of Steve Austin ever appeared in print
>in the AGS News, he would withdraw his membership
It is widely known that the ICR (with which Steve Austin is associated)
generates propaganda, not science. The "science" they turn out is so sloppy
that it would only convince the already convinced. No real scientist wants
to have anything at all to do with them. And no Christian propaganda
belongs in a scientific publication (or in a tax-supported classroom) even
under the guise of "balance."
>Is it any wonder, Susan, why "Creation scientists have tried that and
>failed"?
Not if you consider that they lack any evidence to support their claims.
Susan
----------
"Life itself is the proper binge."
--Julia Child
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/