RE: paleonet Creationism again

[bivalve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

>Smooth ice? Not even a possibility to anyone who reads the
>text literally. What do you think a fundamentalist would
>make of the ice idea, which defies common sense as well as
>standard biblical interpretation? Well, I suppose we won't
>have to guess; it will be all over the Web within a few
>days.

In fact there are quite a few arguments against the
credibility of the Bible or attempts to rationalize reported
miracles that are just as bad in quality as antievolutionary
"science".   Another is the suggestion that the account of
Elijah soaking an altar and sacrifice with water and then
having it miraculously burned up actually happened because
he used kerosene instead of water.  No explanation was given
on how he figured out how to refine hydrocarbons.  Lighting,
on the other hand, would be a viable natural explanation,
although leaving unexplained the precise aim and timing.  

Arguments aginast the credibility of the Bible or
rationalizing away miracles are important to avoid in
dealing with antievolutionism if you want to sway the target
audience.  Bringing such up only serves as "proof" that
evolution is inherently atheistic and part of a vast left
wing conspiracy.  Antievolutionism has popular credibility
precisely because evolution advocates have often combined
that with advocation of philosophical positions, generally
opposed to traditional religious views (see, for example,
Michael Ruse's new book).  

Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
Box 870345, University of Alabama
Tuscaloosa AL 35487-0345
"James gave the huffle of a snail in danger/ But no one
heard him at all."-A. A. Milne