Casey wrote:
>> Creationist Donald E. Chittick to Speak in Winnipeg in Early March
> The lectures to be given are part of a program called Case for
> Creation which is sponsored by the Institute for Creation Research,
> El Cajon, California. 92021
As someone who grew up zealously defending Creationism, I have some
comments to make on this. First, I had to give up 7-day literal
Creationism because I am more interested in truth than religion.
Special Creation (as put forth by ICR, and in contrast to general
creation, or the creation of the universe, without direct elaboration of
its constituents) is not well supported, either in science, or in the
Bible. It is truly a product of religious dogma stemming from an
amateurish reading of Genesis.
John Morris, founder of ICR has been caught, on numerous occasions,
incorrectly citing sources in his papers. He and countless other
ICR-type "researchers" have (by all rational appearances) intentionally
deceived people by referring to secular scientists' obsolete papers as
recent. In one trick, Morris cited a geologist's work dating from 1958,
and in his bibliography, printed that the paper was from 85, implying
that it was a recent work. The "mistake" was obviously a ploy, because
he knew full well that other work had superseded the '58 paper, and his
work would not be taken seriously if he cited such aged sources. So,
unless he is a complete dyslexic moron, the only reasonable explanation
is that he intentionally transposed the year to make the work appear
more legitimate than it was.
Dr. Hovind is another Creationist who now only talks to Christian
groups. He has debated secular scientists, but after reading a
transcript of one of his debates, it was easy to see why his publicity
only books him for religious audiences. When I saw a tape in a series
he produced, I was intrigued by some of his arguments. Then I found a
rebuttal of those very arguments, and saw that half of them were based
on clearly obsolete hypotheses that were little more than guesses at the
time and now have empirical evidence to show that they are faulty.
Ultimately, Special Creation requires a belief in Appearance of Age,
which implies a deceiving Deity. This is in complete contradiction to
the nature of the God that Creationists put forth. To all Creationists
I recommend the book _Fingerprint_of_God_, by Hugh Ross.
> Other leading researchers such as Raymond V. Damadian (inventor of
> the MRI) and Jules Poirier (design engineer whose work guided the
> descent of the Lunar Lander Module) would I'm sure agree with Dr.
> Jones. Sir Isaac Newton would also smile approvingly on these
> remarks, from what we know of his thoughts.
No, I don't believe that any of those gentlemen would agree with
Special Creationism. In fact, Newton himself believed that the universe
was static, and infinitely old. Unless you can quote sources to
indicate otherwise, I seriously doubt the legitimacy of your claims.
> Geoff Casey
> Senior High School Teacher
I hope your students are not sorely disappointed with you when they
take college physics, chemistry, or biology. Read Hugh Ross. If you
can refute all of his arguments, then more power to you. Otherwise,
consider what he has to say thoughtfully, and remember that "The Truth
shall set you free."
Dave
--
David Held, Chief Programmer "As far as the laws of mathematics refer
Business Computing Solutions to reality, they are not certain; and
email: dheld at uswest.net as far as they are certain, they do not
web: www.uswest.net/~dheld refer to reality." - Albert Einstein
