Mr. Vail said, "That's just a theory."
Maybe he can test the theory of gravity by stepping off the edge of the canyon. Newton be damned.
I thought that argument was limited to evolution, apparently geology isn't immune.
Anything that contradicts the young-universe school of thought is fair game. You should read some of the contortions creationists have put themselves through to explain the arrival of light from distant galaxies.
Matt F,
I took classes in high school with kids who swore that dinosaur bones were put there by Satan and carbon-dating was a fallacy.
Of course, we all know that carbon likes to go out with its carbon friends and drink heavily, so if you call that a date, then it's not a fallacy.
if you call that a date
Is there any other definition?
The "it's only a theory" argument was one I thought would only appeal to people without any sort of grounding in science, but I was shocked to find out how many people at my supposedly progressive and academically rigorous college bought into it. The number of arguments I had with biochem majors about this...it boggles the mind. They couldn't accept anything that they saw as conflicting with their religion.
This isn't even including the people in my constitutional law class who saw the teaching of Intelligent Design as acceptable on the basis of "fairness" and being open to new ideas. [I'd insert some crotchety old man comment about the lack of critical thinking today, but I doubt this is a recent phenomenon]
A friend of mine researches this stuff (folds and cracks in mountain formation, that is
Studies mineshafts?
not assholes in rafts)
Oh, something else.
You see any cracks in that?" he asked. "Instead of bending like that, it should have cracked." The material "had to be soft" to bend, Mr. Vail said
Right, like steel. Steel doesn't bend and twist when put under pressure, right? Right?
That bridge totally looks like it's doing one of you modern kids' dances, all shakin' that thing.
Quick, someone write slash fiction about the Tacoma Narrows Bridge!
The bridge felt the wind caressing it, suggestively stroking its cables rhythmically, almost musically. It slowly, almost without realizing it, fell into the passionate, insistent rhythm urged by the wind....
I feel obligated to point out that there are actually young-earthers in the geological community that do notable work. For example, Kerry Sieh, the earthquake specialist at Caltech who was in the news a bunch regarding the Sumatran earthquake/tsunami business, used to be (still is?) a young-earth creationist. That was actually why he originally focused his research on recent (Holocene) faulting in California, China and Indonesia, so that he wouldn't accidentally run into any ancient-earth implications. For the small sliver of earth history he is willing to investigate, though, he has done some beautiful research. In fact, he is actually a pretty chill guy if you ask me. Definitely not a crank, at least not any more than any other scientist.
Kerry Sieh: international man of mystery.
best part:"Dr. Kerry Sieh, the proud-to-be-gay geologist from Cal Tech who is known around the world for his skill at reading earthquakes. "
Sex is like the theory of gravity. You can get close to it but it is dangerous and God doesn't want you to. Having sex makes God angry enough to smash you to the floor of the Grand Canyon.
That's why God created the Grand Canyon during the great flood, and that's why angels can fly, because they don't have sex, and that's why apples fall, because of the Garden of Eden.
Becks,
Hey, thanks, but you know, I'm pretty much making it up as I go along. It's kinda fun not having to worry about consistency or logic or the real world.
OT:
My dad just sent me this book for my birthday. Any of you philosophers know anything about this guy Ken Wilber? At 850+ pages, it's a damn tome, and I don't want to waste my time if it's not worth it.
If that's what Kerry Sieh's doing, great! Actual, solid research in an area that allows him to be comfortable with his beliefs and one where it probably doesn't matter too much how old he thinks the earth is.
It's a whole different kettle of coelacanthes, though, when you decide to ignore the science in favor of squishy-canyon formation. "Teaching the controversy" sounds sexy, and it is, and should be encouraged, but only when there's an actual fucking controversy.
Wilber is associated with the Naropa Institute (The late Chogyan Trungpa). They are dedicated to Westernizing Buddhism and getting rid of the stuff that is culturally-specific to Asia (this is legit in Buddhism). A lot of very sharp people have worked there (Jeremy Hayward is another).
Wilber's stuff is a little bit too humanistic-psychology for my taste.The Naropa people do try to move to people away from narcissistic self-obsession and New Age silliness, but the venture a little too close to that kind oif thing too.
I would suggest skipping through and looking at the bits that seem most interesting, or perhaps those which you feel most qualified to critique.
Well, based on what I've read about him so far...I respect his ambition, and apparently he's a real scholor, not a fluffy self-help guru. I don't think that dabbling in mystisism should disqualify a person from being thought of as a "serious" philosopher (Nietzsche, anyone?), and his thesis is intriguing. It seems to me that if I'm to read a book of his, this is the one to read. I think I'm going to give it a go.