Re: Not challanging scualrism of science

From: Jonathan Clarke (
Date: Thu Jul 18 2002 - 18:46:55 EDT

  • Next message: gordon brown: "Re: Comment's on Allens postings"

    Hi James

    I think you are being a little unfair to your colleagues. Howard van
    Till, Keith
    Miller, Ken Miller, Owen Gingerich, Robert Russell, and Davis Young,
    to name a few
    have all written books critical of both metaphysical naturalism and
    YEC. In the
    rest of the world, Donald McKay, Sam Berry, Colin Russell, Russell
    Stannard, and
    Derek Burke have done likewise.


    James Mahaffy wrote:

    > Folks,
    > In a recent post (Wed Jul 17 2002 - 08:23:49 EDT ) Michael Roberts
    > stated that,
    > > 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
    > > who make it very difficult to have a reasoned discussion on
    >Christianity and
    > > Science. Creationsits do the cause of the Gospel incredible damage
    > First let me concede Michael point that poor science among many YEC has
    > done the Gospel damage. But in this country (less so in Britain), the
    > lack of effective challenge of the secular roots of our science has I
    > think been a serious weakness of mainstream evangelical scientists. In
    > my view it has resulted in a perception among mainstream Christian laity
    > the evangelical scientists have really compromised the Gospel and
    > encouraged their looking to alternatives like YEC.
    > Mind you I think in the last couple decades this has been less true of
    > the ASA then perhaps was the case in the past - but I think the
    > perception (which may be different than the reality) is still there.
    > Two related thoughts:
    > Although they both have weaknesses some of the more effective challenges
    > to the world view of our science have come from philosophers like Alvin
    > Plantinga or lawyers like Johnson (who at least read some good secondary
    > sources) and not from within the science community.
    > When paleontology (my area) was ripe for change from a paradigm of
    > gradualism, why did it take someone with a Marxist perspective (Gould)
    > to challenge the paradigm.
    > But then am I any different? I hesitate to let my name be broadcast as
    > someone who sees some difficulties with the current neoDarwinain
    > synthesis. My excuse may be that I do not want my name identified with
    > groups that as Michael state often do poor science or maybe I don't like
    > being categorized - or maybe I and too many others are afraid to stand
    > out as being different.
    > --
    > James and Florence Mahaffy 712 722-0381 (Home)
    > 227 S. Main St. 712 722-6279 (Office)
    > Sioux Center, IA 51250

    "It is not easy to see how the more extreme forms of nationalism can 
    long survive
    when men have seen the earth as a pale crescent dwindling against the 
    stars, until
    at last they look for it in vain".

    Arthur C. Clarke

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 18 2002 - 19:30:13 EDT