I’m sorry if you feel that way, and if you thought that my use of the “L” word was overly strong.
However, when someone has a PhD in geology, it is only right and proper to expect them to meet much higher standards of honesty and factual accuracy when teaching about their own areas of expertise. Untrue claims from non-experts can be excused on the grounds of ignorance or misunderstanding; experts do not have the luxury of that excuse. Additionally when someone is teaching in the Church, they are in a position of trust, and that gives them an additional duty of care to make sure that their facts are straight, because failing to do so is a breach of that trust. That is what James 3:1 is all about, is it not?
What evidence do you have that my “accusation” was “blatant false”?
I didn’t just state that Snelling’s assertion was wrong; I explained why it was wrong. If you want to refute my response, you need to bring some evidence to the table that contradicts my explanation. Merely dismissing it as a “blatant false accusation” doesn’t tell anyone anything.
And may our Lord and Saviour Jesus bless you too.
Incidentally, you may find it helpful to read the backstory of why I take the approach to science that I do. I will admit that I can get pretty touchy or even confrontational when I see bad arguments, scientific misinformation or bad attitudes towards science being promoted in a Church context—this is because I bought into a lot of that stuff myself when I was in my twenties, and only when I got into my thirties I found that those attitudes had done massive damage to my career prospects. A lot of the damage has since been repaired, and I think I’ve forgiven the people who egged me on into it (and I certainly need to forgive myself for actually getting into it in the first place), but it still strikes a bit of a raw nerve at times.