From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Why is it bad science? Was: Willfully Ignorant
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:49:27 GMT

>
>>This is my issue. Although I am not a scientist and cannot defend
>>the highly technical creation science issues, it would help the issue
>>if it was explained WHY creation science is bad science or no science
>>at all. Some have sent me mail saying this is why they stop reading t.o.
>
>
>	Unfortunately there is some very good evidence that these people ARE
>liars -- quoting out of context, ignoring research. etc.  If the reason that
>these sorts of error are made is NOT deliberate lying, the only option I see
>left is stupid == bad science.
>	Instead of complaining about how creationists are so badly treated,
>SHOW US SOME SCIENCE!  GIVE US A FRIGGIN' THEORY!
>
>
>>It would be extremely beneficial for everyone if those who have sent me
>>mail would begin to participate in the debate. I'm referring to the 
>>scientists out there who do not hold the evolutionary world view and
>>haven't participated in t.o due to the reception they would receive,
>>plus the "professional" peer pressure that would follow. If you are not
>>comfortable with this then please do not feel any pressure to jump in, 
>>that is not my intent.
>
>	Please do jump in; but this time bring your evidence.
>

Ok, I'll bite. The one time I read a book from some place called the Center
for Creation Research was while in college. My field of study was geology,
and as I recall, the creationist line was that all the earth's sediments 
were laid down by Noah's flood. The fact that sedimentary strata are sorted
in a fining upward (big stuff bottom, little stuff on top) was never addressed.
Nor was the fact that we find oceanic deposits overlaying fluvials, and vice
versa, indicating that oceans and rivers have come and gone. One plane ride
over the Mississippi should be enough to convince you that rivers can and 
do change their course over time. When similar deposits to those presently
forming are found in the rock record, we assume they had similar origins.
Any casual observer may go out and witness erosion and redeposition of beaches,
islands, rivers, mountains, etc. Yet the creationists were argueing that 
there was no evolution of the earth's crust. Ridiculous.

   Things that were also not addressed were the changing salinity of the 
world's oceans (evidence for the age of the earth), the aging of spreading
oceanic crust by changing orientation of magnetic fields, the correlation
of the fossil record with other dating techniques to indicate there position
in time, etc, ad nauseam. 

   Now when you move to areas of biological evolution, my knowledge is not 
much better than most laymen. But when I read the gross misrepresentation of
geologic data, of which I was knowledgable, I was flabbergasted. Either these
people are pathological liars, or they are utterly and totally ignorant of the
physical sciences. 

   By the way, the credentials of the authors were something like Doctor of
Apologetics(?) and I forget what else. But none seemed to have any training 
in what is typically regarded as the sciences.

Jeff Achenbach