A Request for Tranquility Base

TB writes:

---

it seems unscientific not to mention flood geology as an alternative model of the geo-col?

---

In public school science classrooms, you should mention it to the extent a consensus of scientific opinion about the evidence justifies it.--Percy

TB writes:

---

Thanks for educating me on Chicago politics. I could reasonably easily track down ten creationist geologists/geophysicists with PhDs. Dozens (plural) would require real work, you're right. Although your distinguishment of geology/geophysics is not without merit it is also a convenient way to halve our numbers.

---

The criteria for what is presented in public school science classrooms must be a function of scientific consensus. The number of scientists (including Creationist), the scientific literature (including Creationist), popularizations in bookstores (including Creationist), what is taught in college courses (including Creationist), and so forth, tells us where the consensus lies.For most Creationist views there is not even a consensus within Creationist circles, while what is taught in most science classrooms today represents a broad consensus within science. This is as it should be.--Percy

TB writes:

---

At least '95%' (probably more) of YECs beleive the flood caused most of the geological-column. That is undeniable. What you are arguing is quite hard to stomach. Is our pioint of disagreement over OECs? Many OECs pretty much call themselves evolutionists so it's hard to say anything definitive about OECs.

---

We all know most YECs believe the flood caused all modern geology - no one is arguing this. But there's never been a consensus on how the flood did this. There is so little agreement about the flood among YECs that you felt you had to develop a completely original set of mechanisms from what had been proposed previously. You're continually explaining how you couldn't possibly be expected to have all the pieces in place because it is "early days", and certainly no consensus has developed around your ideas. I've pointed out before that Creationism seems doomed to drift forever as the favorite YEC theories of one Creationist generation give way to a different set of favorites in the next.The primary point was that the overall consensus within science, including Creationist scientists and their works, is already represented in public school science classrooms, and this is as it should be. Ideas such as astrology, ESP, pyramid power, chiropractics, YEC Creationism and the wonderful health benefits of magnetism possess no such consensus.--Percy

You're drifting away from the main point. We're not arguing about whether YECs believe in global inundation. Of course they do. And we're not discussing the generalities of the YEC viewpoint, such as that they believe water flooded the land to deposit the geologic column rather than that land that was once sea floor was gradually elevated due to tectonic forces.We're talking about consensus. What is taught in public schools should reflect the scientific consensus. Even if we count Creation scientists as true scientists, and even if we count Creationist writings as true scientific literature, it at best represents a tiny, tiny minority within science.Since the route to the public classroom is by way of acceptance by mainstream science, and since Creationists do not take their viewpoints to the halls of science but rather bring them to the pulpit, to the Sunday school, to local school boards and to obscure bulletin boards, the likelihood of Creationism ever reaching consensus status is nil.--Percy

TB writes:

---

But don't be too surprised if some creationist stuff gets published mainstream somewhere down the track.

---

"Creationist stuff" is supported by Biblical interpretations, while "mainstream stuff" is supported by evidence. Stuff in mainstream journals will be supported by evidence and be consistent with current understandings and so couldn't be considered "Creationist stuff," even if published by a Creationist.As Stephen Austin is finding, as long as he sticks to the evidence he can get published in mainstream journals. Funny thing, though. By sticking to the evidence his articles have no Creationist content whatsoever. In fact, the only way his Creationist leanings are evident in his mainstream publications is in the kinds of problems that attract his attention. Same with Michael Behe.I'll support any findings supported by evidence. I have no religious attachment to an ancient earth and will follow the tides of emerging evidence wherever they lead. Your own proposals are not only unsupported by evidence, they're contradicted by the evidence, and they require processes that range from the merely unlikely to the near impossible, bucking not only current scientific knowledge but often simple, everyday common sense, like your layers that are repeatedly deposited, dried, populated and reinundated, not to mention the layer sorting, fossil sorting and radiometric-age sorting in strict concert amidst a great flood.But hey, it's early days yet, right?--Percy