As a spokesman for FLAT, I feel I must respond to the allegation of Mrs. Barber of POSH that we are a joke. If we are a joke, then they are doubly so, because their platform is inconsistent. The only scientific theory for which they want to present alternatives is evolution. Why? They would probably say that there are serious things wrong with the theory, and they can produce evidence that is so, including signed lists of people with Ph.D's who agree with them.

Not that Ph.D's produce instant wisdom, but we can produce such lists as well in support of our position that many other things need equal presentation of alternatives. We have chosen to focus on the value of pi, the shape of the Earth, and the teaching of foreign languages as clear examples.

POSH says the Bible uses "poetic language" when referring to the four corners of the Earth, and that the value of pi there is "approximation". This is not consistent. If this is so, then the whole Genesis story might be poetic language. One can imagine a nomadic shepherd trying to write down the story of the Big Bang and evolution if told to him by God. POSH says we are trying to discredit the idea that "God may have had a hand in creation". If this is all POSH stands for, then they are no different from many Christians (and even non-Christians) who believe evolution was God's way of allowing His creation to flower (for example American Scientific Affiliation).

Just as POSH would show how creationism is suppressed by the scientific establishment, we of FLAT can show how alternatives on the shape of the Earth are suppressed. We, too, can produce evidence to support our position that non-mainstream scientific points of view are just as valid.

Who is consistent? Whose platform is a joke?

Adrian Melott