John and others,
While I don't disagree that the list may not be the best
venue fo airing discussions for or against creationism, is
it nevertheless a venue for discussing how we communicate
our science (a subject one of the earlier mails touched on)?
For example, last Christmas I found myself in a lengthy
discussion with a Christian fundamentalist (I hope that term
is not offensive to anyone) who was doing 3 things:
- citing geological phenomena on which geology currently
does not have a watertight explanation as a failure of
geology to explain the natural world without Divine
intervention/co-ordination/plan.
- citing apparent contradictions in geological
results/methods (e.g. widely varying radiometric ages for a
single sample) as a failure of geological (actually
physical) theory.
- "cites" real scientific data/observations wrongly in
support of the Creationist point of view.
I see the problem here as a failure to successfully and
accurately communicate earth science observations and
principles to non-earth scientists. And I think its
something we need to address more.
If list members do not see this as a suitable topic for
discussion, then I don't mind. Just thought I would stir the
already muddy waters a little more.
Steve White
|