Stephen,

I don't know what e-mails you are receiving, but I never said you were misinformed about anything. If you read my e-mail, you'll note that you are not mentioned in it, nor are any specific claims attributed to you or anyone else.  Certainly, I did not say that you had said that the world was six thousand years old.  I'm aware that you never posted that claim.  I said that people who thought the world was six thousand years old were wrong.  I happen to think you're wrong, too, but that's really not what I said.     

On the other hand, how old do you think the earth is?  Would you give us a number?  (Maybe you already did, and I overlooked it. Sometimes I start to skim when we start talking fossilized pool filters and centimeters of sediment per day.)  And how long ago do you think life on earth began?  Car keys to rock in a few years, so monkeys to people in how many would you say?  

If the experts on your side aren't, like the aforementioned Catholics of other postings, counting begats in the Bible to come up with their numbers, what in the world ARE they counting, and why are they not counting the same things as other scientists? Are these scientists on a quest for truth, or are they on a quest to support a religious dogma that includes snakes reportedly having conversations with the first family just a few thousand years ago?  

I respect everyone's religious beliefs -- if they have faith in talking snakes and a big flood with every critter jammed onto one, big boat, fine.  It sounds unlikely to me, but there's no point in arguing against a person's relgious faith, and what do I know?  The End Times may have already started, and won't I be surprised?  But I don't have to respect such religious beliefs as science, and I don't think scientists should have to either, not in the classroom or anywhere else. I happen to have some religious beliefs of my own that are scientifically unlikely, but they're religious beliefs so I don't teach them to my students or try to drum up scientific evidence to convince them of seeing things my way.  I like to think they're might be life after death, but I don't go giving my students all the stuff you can find on various websites that supposedly prove "scientifically" that there's a life after death.  And I don't expect that a scientist should have to present such stuff to her students just because it's a "possibility" and "one way of interpreting the evidence."   Just because it's "one way" doesn't mean it's worth the same amount of classtime as another way.   

But honest to goodness, I'm asking an earnest question here finally -- are there any atheist creationists out there who have no interest in defending Genesis and who just really think the strongest scientific evidence available shows that the earth is dramatically younger than the vast majority of scientists think?  Is there any "Creationist" movement afoot that's not at its heart driven by religious fundamentalism?  

Maybe I'd read their books, like when I have time in the afterlife.


Chris

Christopher Stuart
UC Foundation Assistant Professor
English Department
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga