Steve Reuland posted Entry 538 on October 5, 2004 04:56 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/537

Phillip Johnson has once again “clarified” his position on the age of the Earth.  You can read my previous comments about this issue here.

On the comments page of Touchstone magazine, we’re treated to an email that Johnson sent to his list.  (Note:  this is not a permanent link, it will eventually be archived.)  Johnson is apparently touring the U.K. with Andrew Snelling from the Institute for Creation Research, a fervently YEC outfit.  So does this mean Johnson is showing his true colors as a YEC?  This is what he has to say: 

I received the message below, forwarded from from [sic] a theistic evolutionist Christian College professor (the explanations in brackets are mine, not Phil’s):

The following paragraph comes from a post on the ASA list, citing information in a publication from ICR. This would tend to support John Wilson’s implicit suggestion in his Christianity Today article, that Phil is moving toward a YEC [young earth creationist] position. If Phil has any comments, I’m all ears.

The latest issue of ACTS AND FACTS arrived today. I see that Phillip Johnson and Andrew Snelling (of ICR [the Institute of Creation Research, I think]) will be making a joint speaking tour in England from 10/26 to 11/13. The tour is being underwritten by Elim Churches and several “evangelical alliances.”

I have consistently said that I take no position on the age of the earth, and that I regard the issue as not ripe for debate yet. I have also rejected all suggestions that I should denounce the YECs and instead have said that I regard high-quality YECs like Andrew Snelling as respected allies.

I am not upset when YECs criticize me for not embracing their position, nor am I upset when theistic evolutionists or progressive creationists criticize me for being overly friendly with YECs. For now I am standing right where I want to stand. When developments make it appropriate for me to clarify or adjust my position, I will not hesitate to do so.

One wonders just what developments could possibly make Johnson make up his mind about the age of the Earth.  Is he holding out for some new and improved radiometric dating technique?  Waiting for new ice core results?  I somehow doubt it.  He’s probably referring to political, not scientific, developments.  The scientific case for an old Earth is quite overwhelming, as can be seen by any open-minded person willing to invest some time researching it.  But Johnson’s “Big Tent” strategy requires him to do the exact opposite of what he pretentiously claims to be doing, which is following the evidence wherever it leads.  Instead, he has to sweep the evidence under the rug when it’s politically incorrect to do otherwise.

It’s funny that ID advocates have been known to deride evolutionary theory as “19th century science”, even though the modern synthesis was developed in the 20th century.  Perhaps, previously, I didn’t appreciate what they meant by that.  Maybe instead of insinuating that evolutionary theory is old and stale, they meant that it’s futuristic and scary.  Because anyone who thinks that the age of the Earth is “not ripe for debate yet” is living in a bygone era, well before Darwin.

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #8418

Posted by PennySaver on October 5, 2004 5:26 PM (e)

The age of the Earth is definitely something that should be debated. While I think there’s some evidence that the Earth is millions to billions of years old, the assumptions that are made in the radiometric dating techniques strike me as very naive–we simply can’t know how much daughter elements were initially present in the rocks, and using a big-bang assumption that everything started as hydrogen doesn’t get us any farther in figuring out the starting composition. Andrew Snelling’s work has consistently shown that methods such as Potasium-Argon dating aren’t reliable; they produce ages in the millions of years for samples that we know were formed less than 30 years ago. Potasium-40 decays to Argon-39 in about 1.2 billion years according to evolutionary estimates, but even if that number’s correct, other measurements have confirmed that rocks from historically recorded lava flows appeared to be hundreds of millions to billions of years old–the technique has no real methods of calibration. Add that to the fact that labs generally don’t take samples unless you provide dates they should expect, and what I see is a rubber-stamp on a wild guess.

As for simpler methods of dating like ice-cores, I suppose you could count snow layers like you do tree rings, but multiple layers could easily have been depositied in a single year. Furthermore, there is overwhelming evidence that the Earth was covered by a massive flood of liquid water in its recent history–I don’t think (and granted, I haven’t read many evolutionary models) that these events are being properly accounted for when many of the more physically-based dating methods are used.

Whatever we can conclude about the age of the Earth (which again is not going to be scientific as we cannot make testable, scientific assessments about the distant past), I think we really need to lay out the evidence clearly, be honest about our methods, and resist hasty assumptions. The idea of a young Earth should be refuted if it’s truly wrong. If it’s young, then I’d say we’ve got a lot more history to start talking about, not less.

Just my $0.02.

Comment #8419

Posted by MJW on October 5, 2004 5:34 PM (e)

After following a couple of links from Johnson’s email I came across his October column in Touchstone magazine. It’s titled “Overestimating AIDS” and reveals something I didn’t know about the man. He’s an HIV sceptic - apparently he doesn’t believe that HIV causes AIDS.

Of course he doesn’t come right out and say that. The article is mainly a critique of the way the international community goes about estimating the fatalities from AIDS in Africa and Asia. He suggests that there is a conspiracy afoot to inflate the numbers to ensure that funding of research programs continues. He may have a point - I don’t know. But if you read between the lines, he is insinuating that perhaps it’s not just the numbers that are wrong, but the whole “AIDS orthodoxy” as he puts it.

He’s treading a fine line - if he’s any more forthright about this issue, he risks being exposed futher as the pseudoscientist that he is. What next? Is he going to start questioning the Holocaust?

Here’s the link:

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=17-08-012-c

Comment #8420

Posted by PvM on October 5, 2004 5:37 PM (e)

Pennysaver wrote:

. While I think there’s some evidence that the Earth is millions to billions of years old, the assumptions that are made in the radiometric dating techniques strike me as very naive—we simply can’t know how much daughter elements were initially present in the rocks,

You are familiar with isochron methods and other ways to test for these assumptions. As far as Schnelling and others, if you abuse methods they can indeed fail but when correctly applied the methods show a strong congruency in age. That’s something YECers tend to avoid addressing. As far as a massive flood, you are right there is strong evidence that locally massive floods have happened but there is little or no evidence for a global flood. YEC has since long been disproven but it survived not on scientific grounds but rather on the ignorance and the selective presentation of data. Let me know if you are seriously interested in pursuing this issue at a scientific level and we can deal with how science has since long shown YEC to be wrong in their supposedly scientific claims.

Comment #8421

Posted by Rev. Roy G. Bieve, Ph.D. on October 5, 2004 5:38 PM (e)

The idea of a young Earth should be refuted if it’s truly wrong.

The idea of a young earth should also be refuted even if it’s NOT wrong because everyone knows that the true goal of science is just to make Christians look silly. Besides, once scientists admit that they’re wrong about the age of the earth, they’ll have to admit to all of the other frauds they have foisted on the world in an attempt to propogate their naturalist materialistic humanist agenda.

Comment #8422

Posted by MJW on October 5, 2004 5:40 PM (e)

The idea of a young Earth should be refuted if it’s truly wrong.

It has been. Over and over and over and over and over……

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

Please do some homework before you start questioning something this basic. I’m sure the kind folks over at Talk Origins will help you out if you have any questions.

Comment #8424

Posted by Pierre Stromberg on October 5, 2004 6:01 PM (e)

The game is over. If Johnson’s willing to travel around with Andrew Snelling, and refer to any young-earth creationist as “high-quality” then anti-creationists have essentially won.

Whenever Johnson strolls into a public school district, and this episode is trotted out, along with his Frankenstein theories regarding the origins of HIV, any public school representative would be committing suicide by siding with this clown.

Anti-creationists are no longer battling a political movement. They’re battling a traveling freak show. The key objective now is to ensure that wherever Johnson goes, any naive local official who aligns themselves with Johnson are immediately tarred so that they’re a horrible example to others.

Pierre Stromberg
Former President, Pacific Northwest Skeptics

Comment #8425

Posted by Steve Reuland on October 5, 2004 6:01 PM (e)

PennySaver wrote:

The age of the Earth is definitely something that should be debated. 

If Johnson wanted to debate the age of the Earth, I would welcome it. It’s his refusal to take a stand on a highly relevant issue, because he doesn’t want to alienate YECs or jeapordize his movement’s political prospects, that I find inexcusable.

Andrew Snelling’s work has consistently shown that methods such as Potasium-Argon dating aren’t reliable; they produce ages in the millions of years for samples that we know were formed less than 30 years ago. 

Snelling “work” shows no such thing. All he has shown is that if you try hard enough, you can screw up a measurement. Or you can carefully cherry-pick where others have done so. You can scroll down here and see a good rebuttal of Snelling’s methods.

As for simpler methods of dating like ice-cores, I suppose you could count snow layers like you do tree rings, but multiple layers could easily have been depositied in a single year.

This might be a reasonable thing to believe if not for the fact that ice cores can be calibrated via other dating methods. Indeed, the fact that a wide variety of independent dating methods converge on the same answer is a very strong reason to believe that those methods are accurate.

Furthermore, there is overwhelming evidence that the Earth was covered by a massive flood of liquid water in its recent history…

There is no such evidence.

Whatever we can conclude about the age of the Earth (which again is not going to be scientific as we cannot make testable, scientific assessments about the distant past)…

This is just plain nonsense. We can make testable assessments about the ancient past just as we can make assessements about the recent past. If we couldn’t make any testable assessments, then Snelling’s so-called work would be meaningless. Why would you say that the age of the Earth should be debated if question cannot be answered?

I think we really need to lay out the evidence clearly, be honest about our methods, and resist hasty assumptions.

Who is this “we” that you’re referring to? The scientific community has long made its methods available for all to see, and has reached conclusions about the age of the Earth based on over a century of determined study, not “hastily”. Perhaps you’re referring to a different group of people?

The idea of a young Earth should be refuted if it’s truly wrong.

It has been refuted, quite thoroughly and decisively. The people who believe otherwise have the burden to show what’s wrong with those refutations. Johnson can take up that torch if he’s brave enough.

Comment #8426

Posted by Flint on October 5, 2004 6:13 PM (e)

Wasn’t “Roy G. Biv” an old mnemonic for the order of colors in a rainbow (or the visible spectrum)? I wonder what the relationship is here? Perhaps we need a similar mnemonic for the creationist litany - humanist evil materialistic atheistic naturalist, or HEMAN. Any better ones available?

Comment #8427

Posted by Steve Reuland on October 5, 2004 6:13 PM (e)

MJW wrote:

He’s an HIV sceptic - apparently he doesn’t believe that HIV causes AIDS.

Of course he doesn’t come right out and say that.

Elsewhere, he’s come right out and said it. I think he’s become coy and has quit arguing directly that HIV is all one big conspiracy; instead, nowadays he simply insinuates it anytime he can find something about AIDS to harp on. He uses basically the same logic and rhetoric on HIV as he does on evolution.

Comment #8428

Posted by Great White Wonder on October 5, 2004 6:23 PM (e)

Mr. Stromberg nails it in #8424.

For more on Mr. Stromberg’s exploits, see one of my favorite creationist debunking websites:

http://www.ramtops.co.uk/coso.html

Comment #8431

Posted by Nick on October 5, 2004 6:56 PM (e)

Guess who said this in 1993?

What I offer instead is a genuine intellectual debate, with everybody’s philosophical cards on the table. Eventually the scientific establishment will agree to that debate, because there is nothing else it can do that is consistent with its own commitment to intellectual freedom and honesty.

(Surprise, surprise)

Compare with Phillip Johnson’s recent statement:

I have consistently said that I take no position on the age of the earth, and that I regard the issue as not ripe for debate yet. I have also rejected all suggestions that I should denounce the YECs and instead have said that I regard high-quality YECs like Andrew Snelling as respected allies.

(PJ on quoted on the Touchstone blog)

I’m very confused by the apparent contradiction between these two statements. In 1993, Johnson is talking as if he’s on the high ground, asking everyone to put all their cards on the table. But in this recent comment (and similar instances of Johnson’s tactical ambiguity go back many years), Johnson seems to be deliberately avoiding, solely for political reasons, discussion of a absolutely fundamental “origins issue” (how much more fundamental an origins issue could you have than “how old is everything?”).

I would dearly love it if one of the pro-ID/creationism commenters at PT could reconcile these two statements for me (Or perhaps someone could ask Phil Johnson himself).

Comment #8432

Posted by PvM on October 5, 2004 7:03 PM (e)

Some interesting discussions on the CED discussion group moderated by Steve Jones

Stephen E. Jones on Phillip Johnson on young earth creationism

The problem is that Johnson has set the ID movement two mutually exclusive goals: 1) to “follow the evidence wherever it leads”; and 2) be “a ‘big tent’ drawing together Christians across a wide range of disciplines and positions, from strict young-earth creationists to theistic evolutionists

Stephen E. Jones on Phillip Johnson on young earth creationism

And in the 1998 Firing Line debate, he described the *core* YEC beliefs of humans being contemporaries of dinosaurs and no death before the sin of man, as “certainly … silly, just … as silly as the work of Richard Dawkins” (see tagline). So Johnson *must* be an Old-Earth creationist, but denies it for strategic considerations.

And more in the links

Comment #8433

Posted by PZ Myers on October 5, 2004 7:30 PM (e)

Dear gog, what can I say but that Phillip Johnson is a contemptible weasel?

Comment #8435

Posted by Wayne Francis on October 5, 2004 8:36 PM (e)

PennySaver wrote:

Furthermore, there is overwhelming evidence that the Earth was covered by a massive flood of liquid water in its recent history

Problems with this.
1) You would need over 3 times the amount of water that the earth has to cover it complete cover the earth.

2) If there was that much water on the earth (including in the mantle) the ground would be the consistency of pea soup.

3) If you believe in Noah and the 40 day flood then you have to accept that if that much water was thrown into the atmosphere in that short period of time all air breathing life would have drown because the surface humidity would be so high.

Age of the earth controversy is only in the minds of the YECers that choose to cherry pick data and make unfounded claims.

Basics on dating methods. Reliable dating uses multiple samples and multiple methods. Its convincing when you get 5 different dating methods that all agree to an age within .1% that you be absolutely confident about the age of said item. This also assumes that you are not a YECer using absolutely inappropriate dating methods for the object you are studying like carbon dating stone from a cathedral to show the date produced is not when the cathedral was built because 1) Carbon dating isn’t used for inorganic material 2) when the cathedral was built has no relationship to when the rock that was used to build it was formed.

Rev. Roy G. Bieve, Ph.D. wrote:

everyone knows that the true goal of science is just to make Christians look silly. Besides, once scientists admit that they’re wrong about the age of the earth, they’ll have to admit to all of the other frauds they have foisted on the world in an attempt to propogate their naturalist materialistic humanist agenda

1) science doesn’t make Christians look silly. The Roman Catholic Church seems very well placed when it comes to science. It makes ignorant people that try to make everyone believe that 4,000+ year old fictional stories, that is totally unsupported by the physical evidence, are actually true look silly.

2) As far as the frauds I’d point out that religions have propagated many more frauds in the past then the relatively few scientists that have done the same. I’ll also point out that the scientific community is self correcting in that even the frauds are found out by other scientist and exposed for what they really are. Something many religious organization have a hard time doing.

Comment #8436

Posted by Steve on October 5, 2004 9:01 PM (e)

Generally I think arguing with creationists is a waste of time. For them too–their time’s better spent learning, for instance by reading What Evolution Is, by Mayr, which could introduce them to the basic concepts they think they oppose. But especially for evolutionists, because as many posts above display, it’s impossible to distinguish between real creationists, and people looking to amuse themselves by inflaming evolutionists. It’s probably entertaining to certain people, to poke a group of scientists and educated laymen into a frenzy with simple lines like “There’s overwhelming evidence for the Noachian flood.” It’s impossible to distinguish the Roy G. Bieves from the Salvador Cordovas (whom I was sure was an impostor)

The best reason to come to TPT is for the excellent posts, such as the ones on O’Leary, Nova: Origins, and segmentation. And to talk to the many smart people here such as Mark Perakh, whose book got an excellent review in the current Skeptic magazine, btw. I saw that at Borders tonight while I was glancing through What Evolution Is, a stunningly good book that everyone should read. I’ll be looking on Amazon for a good cheap used copy later.

Comment #8455

Posted by Dave Thomas on October 6, 2004 12:00 PM (e)

I checked out the page discussing the Johnson & Snelling tour, here, and found this to be of interest:
“Read the article: How The Evolution Debate Can Be Won
by Prof Johnson on the Coral Ridge Ministries web site.”

Clicking that link, there are some very revealing statements from Phillip Johnson.

“When God decided to do something important for the Jewish people, He didn’t hand them the Old Testament and say, ‘Here. Read this and figure it out.’ It took many centuries of work, and experience, and learning for the people to get the idea of what God was about. Likewise, if you’re going to introduce people to scriptural truth, the first thing they have to understand is that there is a possibility that God actually could communicate. And in order for that to be possible, it has to be possible for God to be our Creator. And that is impossible if God is just an imaginary idea in our minds. So, one has to start at the most basic level with opening the mind so that it is in a position to receive truth well before it actually gets the truth or is capable of absorbing it. Now, the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn’t true. It’s falsified by all of the evidence, and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, ‘Well, where might you get truth?’ When I preach from the Bible, as I often do at churches and on Sundays, I don’t start with Genesis. I start with John 1:1, ‘In the beginning was the Word.’ In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right and the materialist scientists are deluding themselves….”

“There are a lot of good things people can do. And the first one I’m going to say comes really straight out of the name of this conference-Reclaiming America For Christ. Throughout most of the 20th century the battle for Christianity has been a defensive battle; the initiative has been held by the atheists and agnostics-the scientific materialist culture. And the problem has been to hold on to some Christian culture. Christianity has done very well in the 20th century with the heart, but it has lost the intellectual world. Well, it’s time to go back and reclaim it….”

“And so we’re the ones that stand for good science, objective reasoning, assumptions on the table, a high level of education, and freedom of conscience to think as we are capable of thinking. That’s what America stands for, and that’s something we stand for, and that’s something the Christian Church and the Christian Gospel stand for-the truth that makes you free. Let’s recapture that, while we’re recapturing America.”

Wowzers. - Dave T.

Comment #8463

Posted by Russell on October 6, 2004 2:29 PM (e)

From the bottom of the article cited by Dave Thomas:

Dr. Phillip Johnson has been called “our age’s clearest thinker on evolution”

Wow! He’s right up there with William “Isaac Newton of Information Theory” Dembski!

But seriously, folks, that’s a great article to point to when making the point about ID’s religious basis.

Comment #8468

Posted by PennySaver on October 6, 2004 3:28 PM (e)

Johnson’s right, and he is thinking clearly about evolution, science, and the way we know truth if that’s what he said. You can’t have truth without a foundation, and like it or not facts are interpreted according to a framework. By making the Bible our framework we can see what is and is not true. I don’t see how an atheist can do it, since they’ve got no physical or historical reference point.

Comment #8469

Posted by Steve on October 6, 2004 3:43 PM (e)

Galileo: “Sweet. I’ve been looking at new details on the moon, found some moons around Jupiter, and noticed Venus doing this interesting crescent trick. So yada yada yada, I think Copernicus was right.”

Church official: “I notice you aren’t using the bible as the framework for your facts, so it must be untrue, and heresy.”

Galileo: “Oh, shit.”

Comment #8482

Posted by PennySaver on October 6, 2004 9:02 PM (e)

Galileo questioned the church of his day, and was able to back up his statements with scientific findings and not violate Biblical inerrancy. Today, modern day doubters of the evolutionary orthodoxy can back up their claims with not only science but the truth of the Scripture.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/galileo.asp

Comment #8483

Posted by Pim van Meurs on October 6, 2004 9:12 PM (e)

Pennysaver wrote:

Today, modern day doubters of the evolutionary orthodoxy can back up their claims with not only science but the truth of the Scripture.

Such as ?

Comment #8484

Posted by PennySaver on October 6, 2004 10:49 PM (e)

A group of Neo-Nazis, whose faith lay in evolution, decided to isolate their population and breeda race of super-men. But instead all they got were the problems we clearly see with inbreeding. Evolution failed the test its followers put it to.

Evolution also quickly fails to explain things the Bible clearly does. Why do women have trouble in childbirth? Evolution should have fixed that problem, but the Bible clearly says that, not only shall the woman be subject to her husband, but that she shall have greater pains in childbirth.

Comment #8485

Posted by MJW on October 6, 2004 11:01 PM (e)

From the bottom of the article cited by Dave Thomas:

Dr. Phillip Johnson has been called “our age’s clearest thinker on evolution”

Wow! He’s right up there with William “Isaac Newton of Information Theory” Dembski!

Turns out that quote is from none other than Michael Behe, supplied for the back cover of Johnson’s book “Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds”. Now if only supplying quotes for friends and allies made them true…

Of course, if you Google the phrase, only 12 out of the 104 hits mention Behe as the author of that quote.

Hmm…

Mike

Comment #8486

Posted by euan on October 7, 2004 12:51 AM (e)

PennySaver wrote:

A group of Neo-Nazis, whose faith lay in evolution, decided to isolate their population and breeda race of super-men. But instead all they got were the problems we clearly see with inbreeding. Evolution failed the test its followers put it to.

The idea of selective breeding is as old as agriculture, as old as aristocracy.

There is no depth of lie that creationists won’t stoop to, thus showing that they don’t believe in a god who punishes the wicked. They are really atheists.

Comment #8487

Posted by Wayne Francis on October 7, 2004 1:00 AM (e)

Neo-Nazis…most Neo-Nazis are not athiest. Really Penny….where do you pull these false fact from?

And don’t you love Christians reasoning for why imbreeding back in genisis wouldn’t be a problem.

Comment #8493

Posted by Bob Maurus on October 7, 2004 7:41 AM (e)

My new theory on all of this has to do with YECyoung rite of passage rituals. They’re not sent out naked with a spear to slay a lion though - they’re given a bible and sent out to challenge science. We just had a 14 year old YECer on EvC who didn’t bother to read before posting, and was stuck with having declared that the earth was 15 years old, tops.

What in god’s name is happening to the gene pool?

Comment #8495

Posted by Steve Reuland on October 7, 2004 9:40 AM (e)

PennySaver: I’d appreciate it if you’d restrict your comments to those that are relevant to the opening post. If you want to post general apologia for creationism, then please do it on the Bathroom Wall thread where it will be more appropriate. BTW, if you don’t even know why women have difficulty during childbirth from an evolutionary point of view, then you really have no business speaking on the subject.

Back on topic…

Pim posts some enlightening quotes from Stephen E. Jones about Johnson’s status as an OEC/YEC and his bizarre refusal to clarify his views. Jones thinks that Johnson *must* be an OEC because some of his prior statements seem to hint at it, but I disagree. All of those prior statements (there were about 3, if I remember) are too vague and noncommital to know exactly what Johnson was thinking. And furthermore, given that we know Johnson is a lawyer who uses lawyerly rhetoric, we can’t trust that any subtle hints he drops are sincere. I can easily envision a scenario in which Johnson is a YEC, but makes subtle, disparaging remarks towards YEC in order to distance himself from “old school” creationism. That’s kind of the whole point of tactical ambiguity – lean one way or the other depending on your audience. If I had to put even money on it, I’d say Johnson is a YEC.

Comment #8500

Posted by ~DS~ on October 7, 2004 2:06 PM (e)

Nic wrote:

I’m very confused by the apparent contradiction between these two statements.

Well some folks would call it flip-flopping Nick. But they’re completely wrong. When Johnson speaks to highly educated Christian groups he supports Old Earth and when he speaks to wild-eyed, snake-handling fundies, he staunchly defends Young Earth. That’s not flip-flopping, that’s pandering, and the Fundamentalists deserve a Creationist liar who knows the difference. Vote for Phil Johnson

Source: SNL Skit

Comment #8506

Posted by Steve on October 7, 2004 6:41 PM (e)

PennyTroll:

By making the Bible our framework we can see what is and is not true. I don’t see how an atheist can do it, since they’ve got no physical or historical reference point.

Me:

Galileo: “Sweet. I’ve been looking at new details on the moon, found some moons around Jupiter, and noticed Venus doing this interesting crescent trick.

PennyTroll:

Galileo questioned the church of his day, and was able to back up his statements with scientific findings and not violate Biblical inerrancy.

PennyTroll missed the point. The point is not whether you can say after the fact that Galileo was consistent with a new post facto interpretation of the bible. The point is that observation and experiment lets you “see what is and is not true.”, and it beat the people who were using the “physical or historical reference point” PennyTroll says is necessary.

“I don’t see how an atheist can do it…”

Of this I have no doubt.

Comment #8509

Posted by Flint on October 7, 2004 8:12 PM (e)

I wonder if PennySaver can find any cases where a scientist backed up his statements with scientific findings, and in the process DID violate Biblical inerrancy? I think this is as unlikely as Dembski applying his filter to some life form and finding that it was NOT designed.

The great thing about using the Bible as our framework to see what is and is not true is our endless ability to reinterpret the Bible after cumulative observation has placed some position beyond any reasonable question. Not that creationists place that high a value on reasonable themselves, but they do eventually distance themselves from hopeless positions because few people wish to convert to a laughingstock faith.

Meanwhile, the claim that cumulative scientific progress is not a historical reference point, and observation is not a physical reference point, is confusing at best.

Comment #8510

Posted by Steve on October 7, 2004 9:29 PM (e)

Flint gets coolpoints for referencing the Geocentrism web page.

Comment #65421

Posted by Nikki on December 28, 2005 2:32 PM (e)

what does the panda on the coin rings stand for????