lew@ihuxr.UUCP (Lew Mammel, Jr.) (02/21/84)
The NASA publication, MISSION TO EARTH: LANDSAT VIEWS THE WORLD, contains a plate of the Dallas - Fort Worth area. By my estimation, Glen Rose is just off the picture to the south west. Here is an excerpt from the caption: Outcrop zones of gently dipping late Mesozoic and early Tertiary sedimentary units show up here as different gray tones. These units form the western margins of regressing marine seas that gradually retreated over the last 75 million years. They now make up a series of broad valleys and low cuestas in this part of the Coastal Plains. The oldest Cretaceous strata, largely sandy beds of the Eagle Ford and Woodbine Formations, support a mixture of forest and grasslands just west of Dallas. It would seem that NASA is among those who take the "evolutionary presuppositions" of conventional geology as fact. The other captions of the 398 plates are riddled with similar references. Comparison of this NASA publication with creationist claims leads me to ask the following general questions: 1. Are creationist claims to overthrow geology any different than the repeated assaults on the laws of physics by such incidents as Newman's motor (to cite a current example) ? 2. If one gives even minimal credence to creationist claims, does it follow that NASA should be obliged to publish alternative creationist editions of its literature which makes reference to conventional Natural History ? 3. Are the various state and federal geological agencies similarly obliged? 4. The Illinois Geological Survey publishes educational material which makes numerous such references. Does this amount to state support of the religion of humanism ? Is this material suitable for use in public schools ? I pose these questions out of the belief that many who see themselves as neutral in the creation-evolution controversy don't really appreciate the radical nature of the creationist stand. Ray Miller has indicated that he is preparing to post his model of the events accounting for the geology of the Paluxy river area. This model presumably is competent to give detailed accounts of the Rocky Mountains, the Grand Canyon, the Himalayas, the mid-atlantic ridge, and so on. In short it must contrive to replace the entire corpus of geological science. Can anyone take this seriously? Lew Mammel, Jr. ihnp4!ihuxr!lew