Michael Roberts wrote:
Despite having received stuff from ICR for over 25 years I have yet to see
anything of any competence coming from that stable.
I can understand the frustration of many scientists over creationism and
consider the over the top responses to be largely the fault of creationists,
who make it very difficult to have a reasoned discussion on Christianity and
Science. Creationsits do the cause of the Gospel incredible damage.
The problem I have encountered with many scientists is their complete
refusal to admit that their theories or hypothesis are not facts. They
cling to them with great faith but seem to be unable to deal with genuine
challenges to numerous assumptions. They also demean those who cling to the
Bible in simple faith. Perhaps a history of scientific facts proved fiction
should be required of all BS candidates.
We believe our modern science is infallible. So to did Victorians believe
man had reached his pinnacle of scientific and societal achievement
I, like you, do not have time to deal with Rennie's rant item by item, but
on first gloss, I certainly did not find it to be any less stable waste than
Hoesch's. I would have no less difficulty defending either's postulates.
My job is proof of facts and debate. Rare is the client that sees the
weaknesses in his own case or the strengths in his opponent's.
I do not place the blame on either camp but on that attitude scripture
repeatedly says God hates most in man, pride.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 17 2002 - 18:42:51 EDT