Panel discussions at the 2018 International Conference on Creationism (ICC 2018 part 6)
|Biology panel with Kurt, me, and Jean.|
This year, the ICC tried something a little different with three panel discussions added to the mix, all focusing on updating research that was initially presented at past ICCs. The intention was also to focus on areas of uncertainty or disagreement among creationists. I wasn't sure what to think about it, and I still have some reservations. But overall, I thought it went fine.
The first panel on Monday afternoon focused on life sciences and identifying the created kinds. Participants included yours truly, Kurt Wise (Truett-McConnell College), and Jean Lightner (Creation Research Society). This one was looking back to baraminology papers from the 1990 conference. We had a really good time talking about research, and we didn't really argue about anything. I thought it went pretty well. I had a good time talking with a bunch of people afterward. I thought it was really well-received. (This is the one where I posted the Q&A already.)
|Geology panel with Steve Austin, John Baumgardner, Tim |
Clarey, John Whitmore, and on the screen, Paul Garner.
The second panel on Tuesday afternoon focused on the Flood/PostFlood boundary in the fossil record. Panelists included Tim Clarey (ICR), Steve Austin (Cedarville University), John Baumgardner (Logos Research Associates), and from England again Paul Garner (Biblical Creation Trust). John Whitmore (Cedarville University) moderated. Honestly, I thought this one was less satisfactory than the first one. I just found this subject difficult to cram into the few comments that were made, especially with two starkly different positions being advocated by different individuals. I thought everyone made some reasonable points, but most points were very undeveloped. Some people made some statements that were... let's call them "untenable" (OK, "outrageous"), but there was very little opportunity to challenge them. I thought this left things more unsettled than it should have. Perhaps that was the point?
|Cosmology panel with Phil Dennis, Jason Lisle, Russ |
Humphreys, Danny Faulkner, and Robert Hill.
The third panel came on Wednesday and focused on young-universe cosmogony. Robert Hill (Bob Jones University) moderated the discussion, with panelists Russ Humphreys (Creation Research Society), Danny Faulkner (Answers in Genesis), Jason Lisle (Biblical Science Institute), and Philip Dennis (independent researcher). This panel was different yet again. In the life science panel everyone got along and had a good time, and in the earth science panel, there was more of an undertone of competition between two models. Here, I expected even more disagreement because there are at least as many models of young universe cosmology as there were people on the panel. Instead, they mostly seemed to be having a really good time. "I have this weird theory..." became a running joke, and it got laughs too! The panelists mostly agreed that the vapor canopy theory from early creationist writings was not tenable. Other than that, people explained their own theories, but no one really challenged them. No one was really forceful in presenting either. The cosmology panel was kind of like a cross between the life science panel and the earth science panel. It really exposed the incomplete nature of young-universe cosmology. It is a hard question indeed!
So that was my ICC. I didn't really attend any of the evening sessions. I was either late getting back from supper or too busy talking with students. I've got one more topic I want to address in my last post on the 2018 ICC.
Feedback? Email me at toddcharleswood [at] gmail [dot] com. If you enjoyed this article, please consider a contribution to Core Academy of Science. Thank you.