Faith said she'll be responding at her blog. I visited her blog, and she repeats that she will be responding there:
When she posts about this thread or the other thread she was participating in (
SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.) I suggest we respond here at EvC, carefully quoting what she says first.
If you read this latest blog entry you can see that Faith feels badly about how things went this time around, but she's caught in a very difficult place that we cannot understand, trapped between two irreconcilable views. On the one hand there is her unwavering faith in the truth of her interpretations of the Bible that tell her the world is young and that a global flood produced all the geology we see today, and on the other hand is the evidence from the real world that says the world is ancient and that the geology we see today took a very long time to happen.
We all agree these two views cannot both be true. Those of us on the science side find the real world to be persistent, uncompromising, and in many ways comprehensible through scientific study. It drives anyone willing to painstakingly follow a chain of evidence toward inescapable conclusions.
Faith believes those who follow this process to conclusions inconsistent with her Biblical interpretations are wrong but can offer no scientific reasons why they are wrong. She says the reasons are obvious to anyone, and she begins by citing a number of reasons, but as each reason is shown to be scientifically untenable she is eventually left only with the declaration, "It's clearly obvious," or sometimes with the dismissive, "Oh, science, blah blah blah, science is wrong." (These quotes are, of course, paraphrases.)
Faith blames us for our refusal to properly consider her evidence and our intractable rejection of the obvious, while we blame her for, well, where does one start? I'm not sure. Certainly Faith is honest and sincere in the extreme, but only by her own highly personal set of rules and guidelines to which we're not really privy. Certainly from the outside her views appear contradictory and delusional, and when she does acknowledge a contradiction it is usually only to dismiss it with a claim it will be worked out one day. If one mentions that not one of these contradictions has been resolved since Henry Morris published
The Genesis Flood in 1961, but that in that time man has gone to the moon, invented cell phones, the World Wide Web and MRIs, and wiped out smallpox, Faith is unfazed. Very puzzling.
This analysis leads to no insights that I can see, and we're left only with the fact that Faith is as inexplicable to us are we apparently are to her. But I see no reason the discussion can't continue with Faith participating from the greater distance and comfort of her blog.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.