And *that* is a sucker bet
The book 2013/2014 book cannot in any factual way contradict the 2003/2004 book. Period.
Science is a process, not an end. The things that we think we know, we have different degrees of uncertainty about. Very few popular books try very hard to address this, and no author, no matter how they try, is able to both quote lots of detail and also constantly qualify each detail with information on how certain we are about the item quoted.
Furthermore in any book, there are bound to be honest mistakes. If we take 2 books and compare them, any mistake in either and you have your sucker bet. Heck, no need to wait 10 years. Buy 2 books about the Grand Canyon right now and the odds are very good that, if you read closely, they contradict each other right now in some way! Heck, take two editions of the same book by the same publisher, look at the errata, and there you go!
So I offered a version of the bet which listed conclusions that I believe we are pretty confident about. Therefore those conclusions shouldn't change within 10 years. More detailed current theories will change (that is the scientific process at work), but the ones that I offered won't.
Of course you won't take that bet because you know that I'd win it easily. So we don't have a bet. Not because anyone here lacks confidence in science, but because I refuse to bet against human error and the scientific process, while you refuse to bet against the outcome of the scientific process.
On the topic of selling creationist literature, there is a simple reason that I didn't respond to that question. I never spoke out against that, and so didn't see any point in defending what I never said. My position is that if they want to devote a section of the bookstore to Creationist literature, go ahead. Just don't put it in the science section, and let people know that it doesn't belong there.
Don't believe me? Take a look at [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=133412|this post] to see me raise the issue. Take a look at the whole damned thread with Wade in religion to see me repeatedly saying that Creationism shouldn't be presented as science. I never once said that Creationism should never be presented. I said that it shouldn't be presented as science.
Please read the whole thread again (in all 3 forums) to verify that. Once you have verified that you were flaming me for something that I never said, I'd appreciate it if you would get back to me with an apology.
Ben
