Uncommon Descent _{Serving The Intelligent Design Community}

Is this slam at Young Earth Creationists fair?

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 18, 2013

Creationism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Is this slam at Young Earth Creationists fair?

James McGrath says

Young earth creationists are notorious for two things (among others):

a handful of them have obtained a PhD in a relevant scientific domain, doing research the legitimacy of and basis for which they intend to repudiate as soon as they have the letters after their name, with the sole aim of adding legitimacy to the ideology that they adhered to before ever studying science; and they claim that the overwhelming consensus of those who have PhDs in biology, genetics, paleontology, geology, and other relevant scientific domains is wrong, and that these experts are untrustworthy.

They cannot have it both ways.

No?

I’m definitely not a YEC myself, but Louis Pasteur was trained in a system that accepted, on the authority of countless experts, spontaneous generation. And then, in a famous experiment, in the same year that Darwin’s Origin of Species was published, he destroyed the idea:

This not only settled the philosophical problem of the origin of life at the time but also placed on solid ground the new science of bacteriology, which relied on proven techniques of sterilization and aseptic manipulation.

Guess he shouldn’t have been allowed to do that.

And why do I drink pasteurized milk, not Darwinized milk, to this day? What did Darwin ever do for humanity that was of any similar value?

By the way some think the YECs (and anyone who thinks the universe shows evidence of design) shouldn’t be allowed to get degrees.

(Translation: Welcome to the neighbourhood, O’Leary. Just because you bought the house legally and took possession peacefully doesn’t, of course, mean you can live here in peace … Me: No? Then we need another civil rights movement pronto. I’ll start it today. Another day, I will explain why I am not YEC. A different story. – Denyse O’Leary)

Comments

Thank you for the explanation, Andre. It has given me a lot to think about.sagebrush gardener_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT}

"They cannot have it both ways." "Either a PhD is indicative of expertise in an area, in which case laypeople ought to accept an overwhelming consensus of the experts where one exists (as it does in relation to evolution and the age of the earth); or it is not...," Does his standard apply to "Junk DNA?" "98% Human/Chimp shared DNA?" "Darwin's Tree of Life?" Maybe appealing to consensus is not the best way to argue the point. Especially when McGrath has zero expertise in the field. Besides, McGrath makes erroneous assumptions as do many of the commenters. He mistakenly assumes all YECS started out as YECS. Taking time to read Bios and other articles of YECS as well their scientific contributions in the past, often finds YEC Scientist changed after receiving their PhD's. And after publishing in science journals, sometimes decades later. They walked the evolutionary path. Unlike McGrath they contributed to science and changed their minds as a result. Being a YEC is not important in Operational work. Operational Science of Genetics or Molecular Biology is not about story telling of a billion years ago. Nor does it matter in practical matters of finding oil, gas, gold, or diamonds. Ask Isaac Newton if he'd care one iota, one jot, one tittle for McGrath's pompous opinion. Or better, ask Dr. John Sanford if long periods of time matter to him. I think a geneticist like Sanford has far more "authority" than a progressive brow beater. Dr. John Sanford My mind remains open. I might discover real science discovery being done 50 years before ignorant naysayers like McGrath. For example, see Eastern Washington. Most "Consensus" thinkers thought it lunacy the area formed via rapid flooding. Catastrophism of a large Flood was eventually accepted as cause for the Channel Scabland. Instead of millions or billions of years it happened rapidly. What's to say one day in the future the Grand Canyon will not be declared a result of Catastrophism via Scientific research? Does someone like McGrath know? Surely not. It will take much research. If Eastern Washington flood area was left to McGrath, people would still be ignorant to the truth. Far from his mocking voice, YECS do contribute in broad areas of science. McGrath's comments show me not to blindly trust consensus appeals by non experts. Dr. Sanford teaches me extremely intelligent scientist can change their minds on complex subjects. It is important to read what other scientist propose. Important discoveries may yet be seen. Like Junk DNA, Tree of Life, Human/Chimp DNA bubble burst, or the Scablands of Washington.DATCG_{June 18, 2013
June
06
Jun
18
18
2013
11:53 PM
11
11
53
PM
PDT}

As a YEC I welcome these things. It gains attention to secret motivation suspicions we can have about the bosses who decide who deserve what. They are in practive or building a climate of opposition to YEC getting what they deserve in sciency stuff. Not only us these days. Lets remember the intellectual history of the english speaking world. the DNA trail of our superior intellectual accomplishments in everything one can measure relative to the rest. it is because of our unique segregated motivations within the british realm. it is because of the confident and rebellious sincere believers in the bible, as Gods written word, that double digit percentages of the population raised themselves relevant to existing levels of intelligence. In short it was the Puritan/Evangelical Protestants , a minority always, that were, with gods blessing, more motivated to accomplish things on earth as a duty to God etc. these people were more represented amongst the English and Scottish people, relatively, compared to other protestant nations etc and the rest. Science accomplishment in the last centuries is from the rise in intelligence, not methodology change, within the protestant world and especially the British world. Its not a mystery but a reflection on identity. YEC peoples created the modern scientific friendly world. its our patent and not the johnny come laters. YEC is as confident today as yesterday. YEC is more likely right on its criticisms of evolutionism and company. i love when they attack us. its hilarious. Lets have a debate.Robert Byers_{June 18, 2013
June
06
Jun
18
18
2013
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT}

Thank you Andre. Excellent post! Definitely a keeper.bornagain77_{June 18, 2013
June
06
Jun
18
18
2013
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT}

God’s Creation, was good, very good, and not so good but never perfect. There is currently a very big problem with the idea of a “perfect creation”, I undertake to outline that this idea is non-biblical and it does not support what scripture says. Good In the creation act God called his creation good six times! Not once did God say His creation was perfect! God Himself only called it Good. 1. Genesis 1:4 “And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.” 2. Genesis 1:10 “And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called the Seas: and God saw that it was good.” 3. Genesis 1:12 “And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” 4. Genesis 1:18 “and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.” 5. Genesis 1:21 “And God created great whales, and every living creature that move, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” 6. Genesis 1:25 “And God made the beast of the earth after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps upon the earth after their kind: and God saw that it was good. Very Good 1. Genesis 1:31 And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Not so Good 1. Genesis 2:18 "Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Genesis 1 and 2 is the description of God’s creation event, not once does He say that His creation was or is perfect, God said it was good, very good and not so good, this is a far cry from the statement “Perfect Creation.” The that God's creation was perfect is non-biblical. How perfect was creation really? Weeds, death, pain and suffering existed before the fall of man and I will use scripture to point out that the belief of a “perfect creation” is not supported by any scripture in the bible. This idea of a “perfect creation” has a major implication on the Gospel and is a man made ideology that contradicts the Bible. I will elaborate on this as we analyze what scripture really says. Weeds & Work Weeds had a purpose in God’s creation and existed before the fall of man, if there was not any weeds why did we have to subdue the earth and cultivate and tend to the garden? If it was perfect why do all this work? 1. Genesis 1:28 “Then God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and subdue it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground." 2. Genesis 2:8 “The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.” 3. Genesis 2:15 “Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the Garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.” Did plants die before the fall? Some animals only eat the roots of plants, thus the whole plant would have died, in addition sea animals eat diatoms and microscopic plants killing entire organisms, it is clear that plant death existed already by the fifth and sixth day of creation. Did animals die before the fall? The text on creation event of animals does not explicitly say if these animals are herbivores or carnivores but we can understand what the Hebrew word for beast means, that word is; chayah. When we examine the word as it is used in the Bible it is clear that the Genesis account is referring to carnivores the very same verse also makes a distinction between carnivores and herbivores by including a, herbivore (cattle) and then a beast (chayah). If the animals where all herbivores cattle could be left out because they would have been included as chayah. Genesis 1:24-25 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and the beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.” Adam named the animals using terms that described their carnivorous activity Before the creation of Eve God brought all the animals before Adam for him to name, Scripture makes it clear that Adam and NOT God named the animals. Genesis 2:19-20 “Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field” What did Adam name these animals? Lion: 'a?ri?y/'arye?h; in the sense of violence Hawk: sha?la?k; Bird of prey Eagle: nesher; to lacerate Owl: cha?mas; to wrong do violence to, treat violently do wrongly He named them exactly by his observations of their activities, that he saw first-hand before the fall. It is reasonable to conclude that animal death did exist before the fall based on the names of the animals. Adam also knew what death was and this is evident when God said to Adam; Genesis 2:16-17 “But the LORD God warned him, "You may freely eat the fruit of every tree in the garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die." It is absurd to think that God would say something to Adam that he did not understand, has never seen or never experienced. It is clear Adam fully understood what death was he witnessed it first hand in the task God gave him in naming ALL the animals. God boasts about feeding the Carnivores The Bible indicates that God Himself is implicated in the death of animals. First, God killed animals to clothe Adam and Eve after the fall and then killed many animals during the flood. God set up the system of animal sacrifice for atonement of sin. In addition, scripture tells us that God created carnivores (chayah) on day 6. Contrary to a “perfect creation” doctrine, the scriptures indicate that God provides food for the carnivores of the Earth, therefore condoning the death of some animals for the survival of others. If animal death was not part of God’s “perfect creation” I very much doubt He’d be bragging about it! 1. Job 38:41 “Who prepares for the raven its nourishment, when it’s young cry to God, and wander about without food?" 2. Job 38:39 "Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or satisfy the appetite of the young lions," [God speaking] 3. Psalm 104:21 “The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their food from God.” 4. Psalm 104:25, 27 “There is the sea, great and broad, in which are swarms without number, Animals both small and great... They all wait for Thee, to give them their food in due season.” 5. Luke 12:24 “consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. Did pain exist before the fall Pain was part of God’s original creation and therefore creation was not perfect. The passage above clearly states that God increased pain not give us a new sensation or experience that did not exist. Genesis 3:16 “Then he said to the woman, "I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you." Why a perfect creation is not Gospel and why it matters If God’s initial creation was perfect and humans managed to bungle it up then Jesus would be nothing more than God’s plan B for us because it means that His design was flawed from the onset and he had to create a backup plan. On the other hand if creation was perfect and we never sinned because Adam never ate from the tree and there was no death ever in this supposed “perfect creation” then there could never have been a resurrection. Part of God's original plan involved the defeat of evil. According to the Bible, Satan, God's highest created angelic being, rebelled against God, taking one third of the angels with Him. These beings attempt to deceive human beings into following them into rebellion against God. Jesus Christ came to earth as part of God's original plan to defeat evil and redeem mankind. God has a higher purpose for this creation than the prevention of evil and suffering. The Bible indicates that evil and suffering provides believers with a means to witness to others, including angels, about our faith. Suffering also produces patience and endurance and conforms us to the image of Christ, the purpose for which we were created. God will not restore original paradise He will destroy it and He will create everything new If God’s original creation was indeed perfect as some believe then there would be no reason to destroy it, God can just restore it. The Bible is clear God will destroy this good, very good and not so good creation and will create a brand new perfect creation. 2 Peter 3:10 “As in the days of Noah, God is giving this sinful world an opportunity to repent before it is too late. “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness? Isaiah 65:17 "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind. 2 Peter 3:13 “But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.” Revelation 21:1 “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. What does Jesus have to say about his role in this? When Jesus spoke with Martha he had the following to say; John 11:25 “Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life” It is crystal clear that from the start there has been a perfect plan and not a perfect creation. Had it been a perfect creation tainted by humans then it would have been perfectly reasonable that Jesus would have said. “I have become the resurrection so I can save you” In Conclusion Believing that God's original creation was "perfect" in every way; that had no weeds, no diseases, no suffering, and no death is incorrect. In reality, the "perfect paradise" paradigm fails in its lack of biblical support and also in the underlying assumptions that it forces upon a "Christian" worldview. Under the "perfect paradise" paradigm, God is relegated to the position of a poor designer, whose plans for the perfect creation are ruined by the disobedience of Adam, Eve and the angels! In this "perfect creation" idea God is now forced to come up with " His plan B," in which He vindictively creates weeds, disease, carnivorous animals, and death to get back at humanity for their sin. This also contradicts the Biblical teaching that God stopped with creation on day six because God would have had to biologically change all the animals so they may become carnivores, this would mean that God had to extend creation and that is blatantly false. In contrast, the universe was created with a perfect purpose, in which human beings are to choose good from evil and bring glory to God. The perfect purpose as opposed to "perfect creation" states that God created the universe as a temporary place, in which evil and suffering fulfill the will of God toward a higher goal than just to give us pleasure or a supposed perfect creation for his creatures to live in.Andre_{June 18, 2013
June
06
Jun
18
18
2013
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT}

Sagebrush Firstly I need to say that I'm not a YEC, If I had to label myself then I would say I'm an OEC. Now here is the reason why this perfect creation for YEC or even OEC does not work. If God created angels and humans perfectly as we assume, then there can not have been any sin, you see perfection is just that "without flaw". If two of God's perfect creation have been corrupted it pretty much says that the designer sucks! Worse still if He is also perfect and His perfect creations became tainted so can He! The evidence however suggest that we where not created perfectly and there is a reason for that, That reason is free will. Tell me can free will exist in a perfect world? I'm going to post my article in full here and in it I highlight why this perfect creation is a folly human made story. Death, pain and suffering existed before the fall, perhaps not human death yet but Adam knew what death was and Eve knew what suffering was;Andre_{June 18, 2013
June
06
Jun
18
18
2013
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT}

And why do I drink pasteurized milk, not Darwinized milk, to this day? What did Darwin ever do for humanity that was of any similar value?
THANK YOU!! I've been asking darwinists that question for years. I would think Pasteur, who actually did something to HELP humanity, would be more deserving of his own 'day' recognized by the scientific community than darwin.Blue_Savannah_{June 18, 2013
June
06
Jun
18
18
2013
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT}

Louis Pasteur was trained in a system that accepted, on the authority of countless experts, spontaneous generation. And then, in a famous experiment, in the same year that Darwin’s Origin of Species was published, he destroyed the idea
The idea of spontaneous generation had become very unpopular well before Pasteur's experiment (and even before Pasteur's birth). He just put one of the final nails in the coffin of the idea. Lazzaro Spallanzani is also often said to be the person who killed off spontaneous generation, and that was a century earlier (and spontaneous generation was believed by a minority of scientists even in his time!)goodusername_{June 18, 2013
June
06
Jun
18
18
2013
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

News: A no-brainer. Anytime award of a degree is not strictly based on quality of learning and thought manifested by mastery of content and ability (as opposed to toeing a party line), the degree has become fundamentally compromised and worthless. A Party membership card -- sort of like how, reportedly PhD candidates in the USSR had to present a paper in defense of atheism to show their "correct" scientific attitude. Prob is, much the same can be achieved through ideological grading, that undermines freedom of thought. KFkairosfocus_{June 18, 2013
June
06
Jun
18
18
2013
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

In fact the Bible does not say there was no death of any kind -- not of plants, animals, humans or otherwise -- before the Fall, nor whether such a condition was limited to the Garden or was applicable across the entire Earth. What the Bible does contain is a small number of references (probably no more than a couple of handfuls and many of them indirect) to the Fall in concert with death, sin and so on, some of which may be figurative and most of which were intended to focus the listener on some other doctrinal aspect (man's need for repentance, man's need for a savior, man's distancing himself from God, etc.), rather than lay out a scientific statement of biological conditions prior to the Fall. From these occasional references have grown up certain interpretations that claim far more certainty than they legitimately hold. A careful reading of the Bible, with consideration of symbolism, context, the literary purpose of specific passages, current scientific knowledge, and the text itself leaves, it seems, significant open questions about what, precisely, the biological conditions were and how broadly they held prior to the Fall.Eric Anderson_{June 18, 2013
June
06
Jun
18
18
2013
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

Gregory - "Another way to ask the question: is *any* slam of YECism as a distorted ideology unfair?" Why should one trade in slams rather than reason? The original McGrath quote was repudiating YECs for learning the entirety of the evolutionary paradigm, and then disagreeing with it. This should be the paradigm of thoughtful critique, not the subject of ridicule. Isn't this precisely how one should go about doing critiques - learning thoroughly and then showing the problems? There have been extremely few evos who have bothered to do the same. In fact, I would argue that it is much more likely to have a YEC who knows a decent amount about evolution, than an evo who knows anything at all about YEC, except to issue slams.johnnyb_{June 18, 2013
June
06
Jun
18
18
2013
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

Andre:
Chimel23, who said there was no death and destruction [before the fall]? certainly not the Bible.
Well, yes... actually the Bible does say that. "Sin entered the world through one man [Adam], and death through sin..." and "Death reigned from the time of Adam..." (Romans 5:12, 14) Perhaps you may want to challenge the interpretation, but to flatly assert that the Bible does not say what it says is just showing your ignorance.sagebrush gardener_{June 18, 2013
June
06
Jun
18
18
2013
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Chimel23, who said there was no death and destruction? certainly not the Bible.
The cartoon version does. It's rated G.Joe_{June 18, 2013
June
06
Jun
18
18
2013
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

Chimel23, who said there was no death and destruction? certainly not the Bible. People have conjured this silly idea that only perfect things can be designed by a perfect designer, I say bollocks. When something is perfect it is impossible for it to be anything else but perfect. I think most people don't really understand perfection. "That which is without flaw, that is perfect"Andre_{June 18, 2013
June
06
Jun
18
18
2013
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

…the author was James McGrath…
Well, that makes sense – doesn’t sound Alister’s style. Different name, different specialty, different theology, different continent. Otherwise accurate journalism.
LOL (Something else we agree on Jon :) )Alan Fox_{June 18, 2013
June
06
Jun
18
18
2013
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Gregory, watch it. I am on duty at the news desk just now, which is why I noticed your comment. I might never have. I will take as much time as I need to explain.News_{June 18, 2013
June
06
Jun
18
18
2013
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

An "overwhelming consensus" has at one time supported spontaneous generation, an expanding earth, phlogiston theory, Martian canals, luminiferous aether, phrenology, Einstein’s static universe, a geocentric universe, the miasmatic theory of disease, the stress theory of ulcers, and the "four humours" theory of human physiology. These were not crackpot theories espoused by a lunatic fringe, but ideas that were widely held and vociferously defended by the best minds of their day. Doubtless their opponents were ridiculed as well. Science occasionally overcomes its ignorance, but never its arrogance.sagebrush gardener_{June 18, 2013
June
06
Jun
18
18
2013
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

It took less than 5 minutes to find and read this thread and less than 2 minutes to write #10. Be welcome to take as much time as you need, Denyse. Likely more than 30% of UD participants who are YECs will especially look forward to hearing your 'different story' of "why you are not a YEC." Hopefully 2013 is not an unrealistic time frame, is it?Gregory_{June 18, 2013
June
06
Jun
18
18
2013
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

Gregory, I want time to compose a detailed explanation, not available to me at this minute. It is wonderful to think there are people who have more leisure.News_{June 18, 2013
June
06
Jun
18
18
2013
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

"Another day, I will explain why I am not YEC. A different story." – Denyse O’Leary Surely people at UD, especially YECs, await this 'different story' with interest. When will it come? Have you ever explained in public why you are not a YEC, Denyse? Another way to ask the question: is *any* slam of YECism as a distorted ideology unfair?Gregory_{June 18, 2013
June
06
Jun
18
18
2013
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

Well, it won't be long before 'the boot is on the other foot', except it won't be from spite born of fear, but as a result of the triumph of truth and reason. And it will not be a wish, a hankering that they be denied the opportunity of gaining a degree, but an impossibility - an impossibility arising from their failure to keep up with the progress in science over the past 80 years plus, so that the courses would not be meaningful to their mindset. Of course, the reality is that they've never had any problem with 'trimming their sails', so they'll just swallow their misconceived pride and knuckle down.Axel_{June 18, 2013
June
06
Jun
18
18
2013
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

Apparently YEC is an embarrassment. Makes me wonder what other widely held doctrines should be classified as an embarrassment.bevets_{June 18, 2013
June
06
Jun
18
18
2013
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

I think the real beef on the part of the Darwinist is that they absolutely hate that a creationist can devote himself to deep studies of evolution and come out on the other side still committed to Intelligent Design. That demonstrates the incredible weakness of their paradigm and indicates that they have little real evidential confidence in their beliefs.OldArmy94_{June 18, 2013
June
06
Jun
18
18
2013
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

So, does the literature expert who has a PhD in Greek and Roman Mythologies lose legitimacy because he doesn't have an altar to Zeus in his bedroom? This is a weak criticism.OldArmy94_{June 18, 2013
June
06
Jun
18
18
2013
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

...the author was James McGrath...
Well, that makes sense - doesn't sound Alister's style. Different name, different specialty, different theology, different continent. Otherwise accurate journalism.Jon Garvey_{June 18, 2013
June
06
Jun
18
18
2013
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

I want to know too why some Christians want to compromise with old-earth theology. The Bible is clear that death and destruction did not come into the picture until the fall, and that God wouldn't call millions of years of death and destruction 'very good'. The only logical way, the only scripturally consistent way to be is YEC.chimel23_{June 18, 2013
June
06
Jun
18
18
2013
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

Yeah, ascribing this to Alistair McGrath is a misnomer. The second link takes you to a blog where, as Sal noted, James McGrath makes the actual statements about YECs. From the blog: Either a PhD is indicative of expertise in an area, in which case laypeople ought to accept an overwhelming consensus of the experts where one exists (as it does in relation to evolution and the age of the earth); or it is not, in which case a few young-earth creationists having PhDs does nothing to support their cause. No, not really. An "overwhelming consensus" does not prove something to be true (argumentum ad populum); evidence and facts do. Also, stating that a YEC with a PhD is not to be trusted is another logical fallacy (ad hominem).Barb_{June 18, 2013
June
06
Jun
18
18
2013
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

Yes it was a slam, no it's not true, and the author was James McGrath, no Alister McGrath.scordova_{June 18, 2013
June
06
Jun
18
18
2013
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

On one hand they tell Creationists to learn about stuff before they criticize it. And on the other they don't want Creationists to even learn about it. They cannot have it both ways. :razz:Joe_{June 18, 2013
June
06
Jun
18
18
2013
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.