A Request for Tranquility Base

^ Thanks for educating me on Chicago politics. I could reasonably easily track down ten creationist geologists/geophysicists with PhDs. Dozens (plural) would require real work, you're right. Although your distinguishment of geology/geophysics is not without merit it is also a convenient way to halve our numbers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
What about a paragraph like:

​

The only possibilities for creation explanations of the fossil order appear to be (i) progressive creation over geological time, accepting the mainstream dating methods, and (ii) that a large flood buried and fossilised organisms at differnet layers based on the interpretaion of continental marine stata as being due to cataclysmic flood waters. Option (i) expains the fossil order through an evoltuion-like creation order whereas option (ii) proposes, with little direct evidence, that a cataclysmic flood could generate the observed fossil orderings via mobility-sorting-ecology considerations.

---

I don't have a problem with it if you want to include this paragraph. It was my request, after all. I would suggest that you might want to spend a few lines explaining the "mobility-sorting-ecology" comment, however. Remember, these kids will probably (mostly) not have had much prior exposure to the creationist theories, and won't have any idea what you're talking about. A short list of examples would also be useful in this context.Thanks for your help so far, TB.

TB writes:

---

Thanks for educating me on Chicago politics. I could reasonably easily track down ten creationist geologists/geophysicists with PhDs. Dozens (plural) would require real work, you're right. Although your distinguishment of geology/geophysics is not without merit it is also a convenient way to halve our numbers.

---

The criteria for what is presented in public school science classrooms must be a function of scientific consensus. The number of scientists (including Creationist), the scientific literature (including Creationist), popularizations in bookstores (including Creationist), what is taught in college courses (including Creationist), and so forth, tells us where the consensus lies.For most Creationist views there is not even a consensus within Creationist circles, while what is taught in most science classrooms today represents a broad consensus within science. This is as it should be.--Percy

As for the "50 scientists..." schtick, see:Account Suspended

^ I've sifted through that article. If you think there is anything of value in it why not summarize it. I found very little.That book was put together in a very simple way via a grassroots church/contacts email campign by Ashton. I was invited to write for it three years ago and chose not to at the time (I was not tenured at that time and felt it wasn't wise). There are 50 PhDed scientists who responded and they are in the book. They cover all areas of science as it should be.That critisism seems utterly pathetic. It is a fine book that is pure and simple testimony of how PhDed people can be YECs. Nothing more, nothing less.In that artilce the last section on the geolgoist who believes in 6 days despite the evidedence is fine with me. The idea that the continents moved that quickly and of accelrated decay are bizaree. Without accelerated decay geological YECism is ridiculous. It is not clear cut but at the same time there is enormous evidence of catastrophism in the geo-column layering as well.I have met PhDed YECs in 2 out of 3 departments I have been in. They do not all preach from a pulpit. only a handful of my collegues know that I am a YEC for example.Your best coffee table buddy could be a YEC![This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-08-2002]

PercyAt least '95%' (probably more) of YECs beleive the flood caused most of the geological-column. That is undeniable. What you are arguing is quite harfd to stomach. Is our pioint of disagreement over OECs? Many OECs pretty much call themselves evolutionists so it's hard to say anything definitive about OECs.And in my paragraph I put progressive creation along side the flood anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ I've sifted through that article. If you think there is anything of value in it why not summarize it. I found very little.

​

That book was put together in a very simple way via a grassroots church/contacts email campign by Ashton. I was invited to write for it three years ago and chose not to at the time (I was not tenured at that time and felt it wasn't wise). There are 50 PhDed scientists who responded and they are in the book. They cover all areas of science as it should be.

​

That critisism seems utterly pathetic. It is a fine book that is pure and simple testimony of how PhDed people can be YECs. Nothing more, nothing less.

​

I have met PhDed YECs in 2 out of 3 departments I have been in. They do not all preach from a pulpit. only a handful of my collegues know that I am a YEC for example.

​

Your best coffee table buddy could be a YEC!

---

Just because a person has a Ph.D doesn't mean that they are always right or an expert in all fields as well, that is why they have peer reviewed journals and the like. How many of these 50 Ph.Ds have published on this topic in a respected mainstream peer reviewed journal? How many are in the correct fields to make a more than informed opinion on this? You can get a Ph.D in just about anything now, especially if you go to one of those diploma mills as many openly creationists do.

^ The very point is that most of creationists are not working on C vs E. That is the point. That book is simply a series of testimoneis and the individual should judge it for themselves. It proves nothing except that science PhDed researchers can be YECs in the scores.

TB writes:

---

At least '95%' (probably more) of YECs beleive the flood caused most of the geological-column. That is undeniable. What you are arguing is quite hard to stomach. Is our pioint of disagreement over OECs? Many OECs pretty much call themselves evolutionists so it's hard to say anything definitive about OECs.

---

We all know most YECs believe the flood caused all modern geology - no one is arguing this. But there's never been a consensus on how the flood did this. There is so little agreement about the flood among YECs that you felt you had to develop a completely original set of mechanisms from what had been proposed previously. You're continually explaining how you couldn't possibly be expected to have all the pieces in place because it is "early days", and certainly no consensus has developed around your ideas. I've pointed out before that Creationism seems doomed to drift forever as the favorite YEC theories of one Creationist generation give way to a different set of favorites in the next.The primary point was that the overall consensus within science, including Creationist scientists and their works, is already represented in public school science classrooms, and this is as it should be. Ideas such as astrology, ESP, pyramid power, chiropractics, YEC Creationism and the wonderful health benefits of magnetism possess no such consensus.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ The very point is that most of creationists are not working on C vs E. That is the point. That book is simply a series of testimoneis and the individual should judge it for themselves. It proves nothing except that science PhDed researchers can be YECs in the scores.

---

Of course they aren't doing any such research since they don't have anything to back up what they are saying. In other words they are living a lie. Their science tells and shows them one thing yet they want to believe the opposite.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ The very point is that most of creationists are not working on C vs E. That is the point. That book is simply a series of testimoneis and the individual should judge it for themselves. It proves nothing except that science PhDed researchers can be YECs in the scores.

---

​

Of course they aren't doing any such research since they don't have anything to back up what they are saying. In other words they are living a lie. Their science tells and shows them one thing yet they want to believe the opposite.

---

**********************If they are members of the ICR they are explicity prohibited from accepting data that contradict their religious views....that is one major reason why creation science will never be credible...and it should not be called creation SCIENCE rather creation belief. There is no falsifiable or testable hypothesis thus far put forth by ANY creationist so it is therefore not accurately called science.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mammuthus:If they are members of the ICR they are explicity prohibited from accepting data that contradict their religious views....that is one major reason why creation science will never be credible...and it should not be called creation SCIENCE rather creation belief. There is no falsifiable or testable hypothesis thus far put forth by ANY creationist so it is therefore not accurately called science.[/B][/QUOTE]How about creation pseudo-science?

PercyEmpirically we already know the earth was innundated by the oceans during the formation of the geological column. Most of the geological column is on land and is marine as I'm sure you're aware. So regardless of mechanisms we emirically know innundation happened and the only further empirical burden for creationists is (i) how quickly and (ii) could it have been completely global? Mechanisms are not quite as important as whether it happened or not.With mountain ranges lower there is absolutely no reason for there not to have been a near-global covering at some point in the geolgocial column even in a mainstream context.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-09-2002]

MammuthusNo.If they are members of the ICR etc they are required to currently believe in literal recent creation/flood. In this way the membership can be cited as evidence of beleivers in this model. Anyone can publiush in the journals and even the members can 'accept' any data they wish as evidenced in ICR and AIG tech publicaitons where evience is frequently discussed that is not favouable to creatonism.You can call the membership policy biased but that does not extend to publishing or restriction of anyones' view of any particular data.

You're drifting away from the main point. We're not arguing about whether YECs believe in global inundation. Of course they do. And we're not discussing the generalities of the YEC viewpoint, such as that they believe water flooded the land to deposit the geologic column rather than that land that was once sea floor was gradually elevated due to tectonic forces.We're talking about consensus. What is taught in public schools should reflect the scientific consensus. Even if we count Creation scientists as true scientists, and even if we count Creationist writings as true scientific literature, it at best represents a tiny, tiny minority within science.Since the route to the public classroom is by way of acceptance by mainstream science, and since Creationists do not take their viewpoints to the halls of science but rather bring them to the pulpit, to the Sunday school, to local school boards and to obscure bulletin boards, the likelihood of Creationism ever reaching consensus status is nil.--Percy