Grand Canyon

Check A12 of the Herald, and then read on.





Don't be lazy now.....





I read Andrew Gumbel's comment about the creationist book on the Grand Canyon with great interest. I loved the way that it 'scientifically' dismissed the creationist perspective without providing any evidence or reason for it being an 'absurd theory' and ‘anti science’ other than it disagreed with broadly accepted interpretations. If the theory is so absurd as he and many scientists would say, why do they bother to publicly attack it and attempt to discredit it? Perhaps it isn’t as absurd as they are telling us. The only 'anti-science' viewpoints that I could see in the article were the viewpoints held by 'rationalists' and 'scientists' who seem to think their theory is fact and above all criticism. That's not science guys.