Thoughts on a Presentation by Andrew Snelling

Thank you for reporting on the talk. I had read this post when it was first up.I have found that it is not especially frutiful to simply get to the end

quote:

---

Everything was crafted specifically to inject doubt into the minds of the audience about the competence of mainstream geology. The pattern was to present some vague, undetailed inconsistency and say, "Now what does this say about the voracity of mainstream scientists doing mainstream geology? Hmmmm?"

---

and become critical from this perspective about any of the particulars of YEC creationism.If one can not accept this kind of doubting it is hard for the generalizations to attach to any approach to an unconditioned mental state. This suggests, to me, that there will be many scientists not otherwise persuaded that simply will find YEC scientific creationism as completely lacking as they are day to day work bench materialists and the less likely. If one has some reason for doubting the presentation of "consensus" science then reading Biblical Creationism can open up the particulars that may be of some support within a general distrust and might lead one to different generalizations for testing within science itself. That is how I find reading post-revivial creationist thought helpful. I have not tried to do this with dating issues. One thing to notice in this particular topic is that among creationists there was some discordance within pre-revival creationist circles on this very topic (This was documented by Numbers in his book The Creationists) Some of the difference say, between Baumgardner and Snelling may be due to which side of that axe each is sharpening or trying to make a fine point less humped up at.It is very unclear to me if it is supposed to be the creationists or the "evolutionists" who will have to break up the distrust.There is no doubt that scientists need do nothing offensive, but the defense of science humanistically may require that scecular science ceed(stop) enabling the doubt such as to dissiapte it into skepticism in the future. Seeing that Dawkins and Wilson and Eldridge have offered at best a temporary olive branch for the sake of a larger whole it is possible that creationism will change less conservatively but personal experience (private) suggests to me otherwise.Edited by Brad McFall, : word

Henry Morris wrote before his death,

quote:

---

There has, indeed, been a remarkable revival of strict creationism (as distinct from theistic evolutionism or progressive creationism) in the past three decades

---

.The Revival of Modern Creationism (II: ICR, For Such a Time as This) | The Institute for Creation ResearchOn reading this I was able to distinguish scientific creationsim and creation science. M.Ruse denies or fails to find this difference and Gould failed to make these seperations since "Arkansas" and talking with Bill Clinton on a plane as far as I can read out his last great work.Morris said later in the article

quote:

---

There had been a few attempts earlier to establish an organized witness for scientific creationism, but these had floundered.

---

Thus, I felt that "creation science" was a term covering a more general commendation of attempts that may be traced before and after the 60s while "scientific creationism" refers to distinguishable (subjectively albeit) threads of specific thoughts that have survived. This is not to say that creation science is not important but that it may refer to less organized versions.I think there is difference between John and his father. The later generation having LIVED THROUGH the period of revived organizing may feel more at ease presenting their positions less apologetically or neutrally. Alas, even though I had for a time thought I might actually work with Ken Ham and or move to San Diego, I find the basis of my own contention to be lack of higher thought in evolutionary circles rather than the poor state of insitutionalization of Bibilical Creationism that prevents me from speaking with a more creationist centric voice.Here is a possible source of Dr. Morris's use of the word "revival";

quote:

---

---

Edited by Brad McFall, : evo source as well

Well, for me it really has NOW, to do with "the Lemon Test" and after hearing what our now Chief Justice had to say about it awhile back I STILL think it was about that.But look, NO, I do not think it was "creation science" per say but "Biblical Creationism" that emerges BETWEEN creation science and scientific creationism. After Ruse completed his book "on design" it was clear he would *never* come **********to********notice this difference that is held to/*******for********* an average reader who may have been informed by NUMBERS' presentation in "The Creationist" pre and post "revival."As to "law" it seems to me rather that if a Legislature simply purports TO ADD information to a curriculum then unless there is something wrong and illegal "with information", that information, then there should be no reason to keep that information out.I think EvC value adds to BOTH creationism and Evolutionist thought so if EVC were what the Lousiana Legislature added then I can see little law against it. We have a thread discussing if it might not be a good thing for students to have access to EVC. Even Will Provine thinks it is important to get "everything" out on the table etc and he holds NO purpose for any final cause whatever.I will be very surprised if the outcomes of ICR's GENE project and the baramin definitions of hybrid connotations on kind is not even going to be a degree better in the decades to come, so no, I do not think this was a "deception." Instead as an evolutionary thinker, I ALLWAYS have to query my own mind if some other species "is not" being deceptive genetically.I think it is all the other way, sorry.I feel that scientific creationism can be noticed AFTER the distinction of theistic and progressive creationism is revealed but that creation science may apply in the amalgam.Edited by Brad McFall, : correcting sloppy typing that I thought was immaterial

About Po Halos?I had commented about the possible reason for a difference in presentation styles.

Seriously Dwise, I do not know what you are asking me. You posted a response that attempted to say

quote:

---

this "revival" of which you speak

---

and I simply posted a response trying to say that whatever it was that you were writing on about, it was not "of which" I thought I had written.The question of what "revival" I was refering to came in reponse to my first post so I am a little reluctant in trying to draw a subthread through my own needle hole without addressing the main topic. Are you asking me to post more creationist thoughts on EVC?I thought I had covered both the creationist and the evolutionist references to the creationist's "revival." You attempted to situate it legally. I offered my opinion. If it is the issues of US Legal System that you are interested in then perhaps we should find some of the old threads that discuss this. I have written on "lemon test" and issues of courts etc before.As to avoiding discussion, no, in fact, it has been my impression that others would like shorter than longer contributions from me instead. Personally, and as an aside, I prefer to focus on the persistant heterodoxy of evolutionary thought that might indeed be opened for creationist commerce but, hey, that is just me.If you will not say just what you want me to discuss IN THIS THREAD I will take it that the topic really belongs in another.