Stephen,

I don't think it's going to be lost on any of your Raven critics that you have failed to respond to even one of my toughest questions.  Don't want to discuss the age of the universe today?  Fine.  The age of life on earth?  The age of human beings?  The age of mammals?  Take you're pick, and give us your estimate.

Next, if your scientific "dissenters" are not counting begats in the Bible, how do they arrive at that age?  What in the world (if it is in the world) are they counting?

Next, who are the atheist creationists who have simply been convinced by the weight of the evidence that the world is dramatically younger than the vast majority of scientists think?  You have some names but you won't give them out?

One colleague writes to me personally in your defense to say that I have been uncivil an uncollegial.  She goes on to suggest that your critics on Raven are in actuality threatened by your logic.  After all, she reasons, if a little kid were trying to argue with her that 2+2=7, she wouldn't get all upset and start firing off angry e-mails.

But I submit that she might if that child were in the legislature and threatening to make her teach 2+2=7 as "one theory among others."  It's not your logic that threatens the scientists on this campus who have spoken up, I'm guessing.  If your logic were threatening, I think there'd be a lot more scientists on your side. There are, after all, issues where scientists are much more evenly divided, just not on this one.  No, your logic is not scary.  What's scary is the political power folks of your persuasion might wield and which might be used to try and force professors to teach "Creationism" as "one theory among others," as though Creationist arguments were not poor ones, and as though they were as good and deserved the same respect as any other arguments.  At least, that's what scares me. 

We can agree, can't we, without saying that I'm being uncivil, that 2+2=7 is not an argument that should be accorded the same respect as 2+2=4?  So why should professors have to give your "dissenting" view a voice if in their expert opinion your 2+2 amounts to 7? 

Chris   

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Nichols <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] 
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 10:23:56 -0500
Subject: Re: [UTCSTAFF] Final installment

> Stephen,
>
> I don't know what e-mails you are receiving, but I never said you were
> misinformed about anything
>
You described my argument as "inane grenades", but if I have
misunderstood this statement, then I apologize.

> 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.
>
>
No, you are making assumptions about my intent or are confusing the
issue in question.  I purposefully stayed away from "the age of the
universe" arguments because it is a different topic than the origins of
life.   As I said yesterday, we can tackle a new topic in due time, but
not today.

>
> 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.

Again, you're confusing the issue.  I'm not asking for Scripture to be
quoted, mentioned, or even discussed.  I simply want scientific dissent
to be included in the discussion.

> 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.
>
>
I guess you subscribe to the "my science is better than your science"
way of thinking.  Science is the search for truth.  It does not have an
agenda.  Why shouldn't scientists consider and present all of the
possibilities?   Isn't that what drives scientific discover?  Isn't that
why Darwinism came to the fore front in the 19th century because the
prevailing idea that life was static and unchanging did not fit the
evidence?  Now dissent against neo-Darwinism is on the rise because some
scientists conclude that it does not completely fit the evidence
either.  And stifling that dissent makes you no better than the
scientists who opposed Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler or those who
opposed Darwin.

> 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


I have a few I could suggest if you find the time between now and then.


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