OAF%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA (12/22/83)
From: Oded Anoaf Feingold <OAF%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA> [Physics gets a copy after all - I got mail from CSTACY saying he was ducking out until the net.origins controversy played itself out. So I wanted to tell him to hang in there, the best is yet to come.] Chris, you are a goddam WIMP! What you were witnessing on physics is a perfect example of creationist agitation in the United States today. "Scientific creationism" is being actively promulgated by right-wing political forces, and its effect is felt in the state legislatures (where they pass equal-science-class-time- for-creationism laws) and schoolrooms (where teachers live in fear of breaking the law by failing to teach creationism (and show me a science teacher who has training in creationism)), and budget decisions (I wonder whose biology textbook gets the okay in Louisiana, where presently such a law is in effect.) This aint doodly-squat: We're talking about many millions of dollars, as well as the critical faculties of the generations a-coming (hallelujah.) Mr. Dubuc's original suggestion, of net.origins, was a good tactical ploy: He couldn't lose: If the discussion group were established and people from the physics mailing list joined, it would legitimize creationism as a valid scientific topic of discussion. If the group were established and nobody came, it would be a perfect example of the scientific community's insecurity and insularity. If the group were NOT established it would be yet another (oh yeah, almost forgot, perfect) example of the scientists' paranoid dogmatism. Like I said, total win. Also dirty pool. Succeeding discussions pulled the argument out of such stratospheric reasonability and into the gutter, where it belongs and where I (for one) am more comfortable. Several people sent mail objecting to net.origins, for reasons that seem adequate to me, some of them listed above. Mr. Dubuc's defenses of his quasi-(thesis proposal) included quotes out of context, mention of books (Hitching's) whose centrality to current research on the topic at hand is at least questionable, much sarcasm, disingenuous explanations of why such topics don't belong on net.religion, and knowing untruths. [In particular, I'll note the conclusion that because Stephen Jay Gould isn't happy with a particular synthetic theory all of evolution falls flat on its face.] How many advisory committees would accept a thesis proposal backed by such evidence? This kind of reasoning fails as justification EVEN TO SUBSTANTIATE THE VALIDITY OF AN ISSUE TO BE DISCUSSED, let alone support for any particular conclusion. But Mr. Dubuc's arguments are not without power. In more sophisticated incarnations, as shown by Messrs. Morris, Gish, Falwell and others, they serve admirably to convince state legislatures, frighten school boards and administrators, cause self-censorship among the textbook publishers, and organize opposition to liberal or otherwise unacceptable politicians (goodbye Frank Church, you dirty Commie!) This class of argumentation gives the right-wingers and religious (in particular evangelical fundamentalist Protestant Christian - let's be specific) leaders a handle to work their will on the rest of society, whether that society be interested in their message or not. Frankly, it's the vanguard (fifth column) for the fascists. So why should you stick around and read this guff? Well, one day you might have children and might care about what they learn. But long before that you'll pay taxes for schools - you might have opinions about what kind of fellow-travelers, er, citizens you're supporting. You also will have representatives, senators, presidents, and things like that running part of your life for you - maybe you care how they spend your money and carcass, and since we live in a superpower you may care how they dispose of the only planet you live on. Y'ALL OUGHT TO KNOW YOUR ENEMY, SON. The kind of thinking promulgated by creationists - wherein scientific inquiry is displaced by politically acceptable predetermined truths, is the thing that cripples a country morally and technologically. You want an example? Howzbout Lysenkoism in the USSR, wherein Marxist philosophy was allowed to supplant good old Darwinism (wasn't even neo-Darwinism in those days) and Soviet biology took more than twenty years to recover, and hasn't completed the recovery process yet. [So what - well, so 30+ years later Soviet biology isn't as advanced as ours in certain fields: That might make a difference when it comes to cooking up cold-resistant strains of wheat, or keeping Lake Baikal alive, or providing certain types of medical care.] Note that creationism is a FAR more violent deviation from present-day biology than Lysenkoism from the biology of the time. If it makes the same progress as Lysenkoism we're going to resemble Iran. Me no like. So if you're going to fight this kind of insidious attack on everything that's good and admirable about the United States, or western society for that matter, it would be good to know your enemy (okay, so I'm redundant.) I hope it isn't surprising that cocktail-party skills of spotting the concealed salient, rebuttal and persistence carry over into the schoolroom, the courtroom and sometimes the battlefield. It would also be good to know that this enemy must be fought at every point, from the first peep of "let's have net.origins" to the last gasp at Armageddon. Remember Linus's famous words as he dragged his security blanket back from Snoopy: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." Mr. Dubuc, I vote AGAINST net.origins. I'd like to keep you right here on physics, so I know what chicanery you're up to, cuz I'll be damned if I join net.origins. Furthermore, in your sarcastic message to me you mentioned that you'd never met a creationist-baiter. Well, you were wrong, probably not for the first time. [However, in deference to the tender sensibilities of others on the list I will tend to keep future responses short, and private.] Thanks Chris, for letting me get all that off my chest. Oded
WEINRICH@RUTGERS.ARPA (12/23/83)
From: Tim <WEINRICH@RUTGERS.ARPA> Well, I hope there is someone out there who has time to type up an appropriate response to the flagrant rhetoric and illogic in Feingold's anti-creationism message. (Unless it was an incredibly clever \parody/ of an anti-creationism argument, in which case I'll become very red in the face and go away.) I am leaving for a week, as of right now, and cant take the time for a detailed counter-attack. But it'll be real fun to read some when I get back! Do not send your replies to me, personally. Send them to the list. Twinerik -------
lab@qubix.UUCP (Larry Bickford) (12/28/83)
Trying to squish Feingold's flame into a sentence, he seems to say that
creationism stifles scientific inquiry.
Sure, tell that to Pasteur, Newton, Maxwell, Kelvin, Babbage, Faraday,
Francis Bacon, ... how many more scientists would you like me to name
who were also creationists?
As for teachers having to teach something that they have no training in
(creation science), who said teachers are supposed to remain dead in the
water instead of keeping up with current science? Time and Newsweek will
report the latest find by the evolutionist, but wouldn't give a word to
anything positive from a creationist.
Larry Bickford, ihnp4!{amd70,decwrl}!qubix!lab
P.S. Since I don't read net.physics that often, please respond by mail
rather than followup article.