Replies

Er, not every article/website on the Creation/Intelligent Design side is blind to rebuttal arguments or websites.

For instance, on my website, the two articles I've posted include excerpts from and links to sources that hold different points-of-view:

Evolution through the Back Door

Origins and Scriptures

I don't dwell on them, but I do mention the rebuttal, the source and the counter point.

Rats, I should have mentioned that I did not mean to excuse the unconscionable practice of concealing rebuttal evidence to an appendix note; rebuttal hard evidence should always be front-and-center in an article's narrative.

Such a practice is much like sending direct mailing with very fine print.

Didn't mean to be all that sweeping. Sorry!

:)

Your site, on a fairly cursory look, contains no misrepresentations or errors of fact that I can see, AG. We could argue, and have argued, about interpretation, but that's a different issue. You discuss the physics in quite considerable detail, reference it fully, and all that good stuff. In fact, I'd hesitate to post anything critical of it, simply because to do so would involve quite a deal of research :-)

I've been trying not to post anything to the effect that 'all creation science is bunk', as per the agreement. Your site is an obvious counter-example, in fact. But the statement that 'anything on the AiG site is likely to be bunk', is IMO, completely justifiable. It took me a good hour of my time to find how Humphreys was cooking his data, and I'm frankly quite angry about that. We have the choice of letting the misrepresentations go unchallenged, or of spending a lot of time dissecting them to find the inevitable flaw. I'm probably going to email these guys to tell them what they're doing is wrong, but I don't pretend it will do any good.

I run across a similar problem when I teach thermodynamics. Almost every year, a student will come up with some sort of ingenious perpetual motion machine. I can sit down with them and examine it in detail, and find the flaw; or I can tell them what I know at first sight to be true - that the machine violates the first law or the second law, and therefore can't work as designed. They almost never accept the second answer, and so I end up digging through the mechanics or the chemistry, finding out the specific error. Likewise, I know that a paper that claims the earth is 6000 years old is wrong, and will reject it on that basis alone, but a YEC won't accept that reasoning, obviously, and so I end up having to plough through it to find the problem, knowing that it's a pointless exercise because next week they'll be back with another equally mistaken article, and they'll never learn.