From: Jonathan Colvin (jcolvin@ican.net)
Date: Fri Jun 19 1998 - 16:18:04 MDT
>From what I can see of the DayStar Magazine's principals, it is a welcome
progression in creationist publication. I note that the magazine does not
purport to be a "science journal", and is not being sold as such. The
"science section" is probably a fitting place for it. "Popular Science" is
hardly a science journal! If you are going to attack this magazine, it must
be because of what it says, not who publishes it and for what reason. Are
the articles balanced and reasonable, or full of lies and distortion like
much creationist writing? Believe it or not, there are people who believe
in Special Creation who are principled and not stupid. These people, by and
large, are NOT fundamentalists.
There is a subset of the creationist movement that has distanced themselves
from fundamentalist lunacy such as that written by Gish etc. The focus here
is on the "cosmic coincidence problem", as in, why are the initial
conditions of the universe so fitting for life to exist. This is not a
trivial problem, and cannot be written off as "mere chance". I happen to
believe that an anthropic argument coupled with a multi-verse is sufficient
to explain this universe's initial conditions, but there is room here for
those who wish to believe in a creator to find their niche. If this
magazine can provide an honest, balanced environment, I welcome it.
Jonathan Colvin
jcolvin@ican.net
___ _____
( ) ******** ( )
( ) * ( )
---- * ( )
*** ------------
*************************************************
***
Paraglide Ontario: http://home.ican.net/~jcolvin/paraglid.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:12 MST