It just occurred to me . . .

imageI don’t think Stephen Jones understands the the repair theory at all when he writes today in another installment:

Pro-authenticist explanations of the discrepancy (e.g. contamination with newer carbon, invisible repairs with 16th century cotton) don’t work.

Why don’t the explanations work? Stephen doesn’t explain why. So far he has relied mainly on statements by Hall and Gove that have no bearing on the subject of reweaving. And he has questioned the quad mosaic, which is questionable anyway. The fact of the matter is that if there is reweaving in the quantities that are being proposed, the “[p]ro-authenticist explanations” will work. They cannot fail to work. He doesn’t realize this. This is the danger of working alone, refusing to read anything that goes against one’s own presuppositions, and refusing to allow dialogue.

Beyond that, this hacking stuff: Read Stephen’s posting. So, what is the difference between evidence and conspiracy theory?

2 thoughts on “It just occurred to me . . .”

  1. Jones doesn’t get it. And we don’t get it as to why he doesn’t get it. It is not unlike biblical literalism. I have a brilliant A+ student in science who is convined that the world is less than 10,000 years old. It is why 40% of Americans believe in creationism. It is not a failure of education but something else. Nor is it a problem of intelligence. Of course repairs could work.

    1. Paulette, I fear that when your student finally comes to his senses, he is almost certain to throw out the baby with the bath-water and abandon his faith. He will be but one more in the long line of once evangelical Christians, who have turned agnostic when once they face the reality of the error of creationism. I believe that one of the first attempts at drawing on biblical literalism were used by the tempter as early as Matthew chapter 4. He is still at work, and it seems to bear him much fruit, but of the sour variety! Perhaps you can yet save him!

Comments are closed.