---

From: Brett J. Vickers To: All Msg #123, Oct-06-93 11:38AM Subject: Re: Forrest Mims: Setting the record straight on SciAm (Part 1 Organization: University of California, Irvine Subject: Re: Forrest Mims: Setting the record straight on SciAm (Part 1 of 1) From: bvickers@net5.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) Message-ID: <28v6s5$g7a@net5.ics.uci.edu> Reply-To: bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins Stephen Matheson wrote: >Mims claims to have rejected Darwinian evolution on scientific >grounds. As far as I know, he has not advanced an alternative >theory based on unscientific premises. You're going to have to forgive my incredulity, but don't you think Mims could have made his case much stronger by supporting it with these so-called scientific arguments that you suggest might exist? Anyways, there is good reason to believe that Mims questions or dismisses evolution (and old-earth geology) out of religious bias. From an earlier article by Chris Stassen: > It has been posted here, and reported elsewhere, that Mims does > not believe in the young earth. I am not certain that this reporting is accurate. A supposed old acquaintance of Mims, Daniel Jimenez, allegedly forwarded some questions from me to him. In an E-mail letter dated 21 May 1991, Jimenez supposedly forwarded Mims' response to my question on what position he holds in regard to the age of the earth. The answer: # I don't know the age of the earth. No one can ever know, based # on the evidence. Radiometric dating is too contradictory. Assuming that Jimenez represented Mims' response fairly (and was not grinding his own axe), the response casts doubt on Mims' claim (in the same E-mail) that his position is a result of careful study of the topic. Such an out-of-hand dismissal is not typical of those who have made a careful study of the field. There are two independent lines of isotopic evidence which give a time of formation for the solar system, both of which agree on the same value. That is hardly "contradictory." I think it's pretty clear that Mims has, at best, refused to give scientific support to his creationist beliefs. At worst, he's let his religious biases trample his science. Despite Mims' protestations to the contrary, I still think SA did the right thing. -- Brett J. Vickers bvickers@ics.uci.edu

---

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank