NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/skeptic/20129

Text File | 1992-11-23 | 3.8 KB | 76 lines

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Path: sparky!uunet!srg!spica!dpipes
From: [e-mail] (Dave Pipes x4552)
Subject: Re: Rant concludes
Organization: just me
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 20:43:53 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet news user)
Lines: 63

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Rick Moen, Director
>Bay Area Skeptics writes:
>
>|On the other hand, skeptics do indeed confront religious quackery that
>|involves testable claims on the fringes of science.  Notable examples
>|are faith-healing and creationism.
>
>My 8 yr old son likes to drive the radio while I drive the car,
>mostly using a combination of the SCAN and SEARCH button.  So I
>don't know the channel, but Monday, he hit on a short 1 minute
>talk clip called: Creation Moments.  A fellow with a British accent
>was interviewing a scientist who said:
>    During the Mount St. Helen eruption, a canyon 1/4 the size
>of the grand canyon was created in a matter of HOURs by a mud flow.
>Also that rock formations with many layers were created in a few
>days.
>
>Please understand that this post isn't trying to prove anything!
>But, it had occured the me that "creation scientists" I think that
>was the lable the radio used may be performing a valuable function
>of skepticism as well... I do remember being singularly unimpressed
>with freshman geology and geomorphology "how do they KNOW, that
>hunk of blue quartz is a billion years old?"  Think of it as
>"reverse" skepticism.
>
>Disclaimer:  I am not asserting ANYTHING, I was just trying to
>make you smile, this is a light hearted post!

Understood.  It is just that the *purpose* of creation science is not that
of skepticism.  It is instead intended to promote one view over another.
The creation science folks *know* that the bible would not lie.  Since the
Bible stories of creation and the fall of man are nullified by creation in
the tradition Fundamentalist reading, they have to come up with a way of
nullifying evolution.  One way to do this is to attack geology, which if
it can be shown to be wrong will affect the dating of fossils.  So they came
up with a number of different scenarios, all of which use varying amounts
of divine intervention to create the same results as the standard geological
theories.  Except, of course, the creationists then have to explain a few
things with miracles.  No problem if you believe in God, big problem if you
don't want Him involved with science.

Ronald Numbers' "The Creationists", which looks at the movement from its
origins, covers this in bewildering detail.  Among the problems noted are
the references to the same geological features in pre- and post-flood parts
of the Bible; the reverse ordered fossils lying on top of regularly ordered
fossils in overthrust layers; the necessity of some form of evolution to
explain recent speciation (according to some, anyway); and I am certain there
are others.  Even the founders of creation science like George Macready Price
were known to state that, if it weren't for their belief in God, they would
be hard-pressed to come up with a divine intervention theory of geology
based on the evidence.

Perhaps they view themselves as skeptics; more likely as crusaders.  For me,
there is no question; but I would rather not force others to think as I do,
and would prefer that they leave me alone in the same way.  Thus I am leery
of anyone who comes up with far-fetched theories just to support a belief.
Of course the last sentence refers to an "unquestionable" belief like that
of religion, and not some twisted use of the word to mean "hypothesis".  It
doesn't mean that, of course.  :-) to Derek.

    David Pipes
[e-mail]