OAF%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA (12/14/83)
First, re asserting that A is scientific and B is religious may be hubristic:
Beware the temptation to confuse an empty mind with an open one.
Second,
------------------------------------------------------------
I think it would be good not to burden the readers of net.religion
with the technical details of theories of origins.
____________________________________________________________
I don't know why.
Third,
I vote AGAINST net.origins - it will polarize into war between the
creationists and the creationist-baiters. I hardly imagine anyone
contributing factual statements to such a list.
Your suggestion (for net.origins) bothers me for another reason. I think
it represents a tactical triumph of creationism, which claims that science
education (typified by the theory of evolution, as well as physical methods
of dating the earth's origin by radioisotopic and astronomic means) is some
kind of dogma, and unproven. But that is not the issue - those theories
are examples of scientific method, and though the particular results
may be presented as "established facts" there is a string of logical and
empirical support for them, extending back to first principles and
verifiable observation by humans using human senses. That logical grounding
is qualitatively different from the type of "analysis" used by creationists.
It spells the difference between what is science and what is not. Since
the creationists are unwilling to play that game and take their lumps on the
questions of refutability and logical consequences, they have no place in
science education. As a result, setting the question of origins
as a scientific question to be discussed among creationists and anti-
creationists has no meaning. Establishing net.origins with that stated
purpose concedes ahead of time something WHICH ISN'T TRUE, namely that
creation "science" is science. It makes further debate specious.
That is why I oppose net.origins. Replies welcomed.
Oded Feingold
ARPA: OAF@OZ
Snail: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
545 Tech Square
Cambridge, Mass. 02139
Phony: 617-253-8598stekas@hou2g.UUCP (J.STEKAS) (12/16/83)
No to net.origins!!
Let's call it net.creation. After all, the creation "scientists" are not
interested in the origins of life or the universe. Since their object is
only to peddle creationism the newsgroup title should be as narrow as the
subject - net.creation.
Recently appearing in net.ai was the following rule-of-thumb with
regard to determining whether a discipline is scientific:
"If it has science in the title, it's not."
Jimpmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (12/16/83)
[From Oded Feingold:]
First,
re asserting that A is scientific and B is religious may be hubristic:
Beware the temptation to confuse an empty mind with an open one.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean to convey to me by this warning, but
I do thank you for it. I assure you that, should I ever be confronted
with such a powerful temptation, I will do everything humanly possible
to resist it. Also, I have confidence that, if I should ever show signs
of having failed in this effort, there are many persons on the net who
are more than able to bring lucidity to my confused mind.
Second,
------------------------------------------------------------
I think it would be good not to burden the readers of net.religion
with the technical details of theories of origins.
____________________________________________________________
I don't know why.
Simply because many who read that news group may not be interested.
It seems to me that net.religion is not the place to submit discussion
on the speed of light or evolutionary theory. Yet this is exactly what
happens. It seems that many who are knowledgeable in these areas have
poured out their knowledge in net.religion in response to the "bait" of
creationists who (as you say) are not the least bit interested in submitting
their beliefs to authoritative refutation. Such a waste! Surely there
must be a way to get a more worthwhile audience.
Third,
I vote AGAINST net.origins - it will polarize into war between the
creationists and the creationist-baiters. I hardly imagine anyone
contributing factual statements to such a list.
I have yet to see a "creationist-baiter" on the net. I seems to me that
creationists are always the ones accused of doing the baiting.
If such polarization does take place, it will only be because
those who are able to contribute meaningfully and authoritatively to
the discussion do not do so. Of course, some annoyance is unavoidable
with this medium.
Your suggestion (for net.origins) bothers me for another reason.
I think it represents a tactical triumph of creationism, which
claims that science education (typified by the theory of evolution,
as well as physical methods of dating the earth's origin by
radioisotopic and astronomic means) is some kind of dogma, and
unproven. But that is not the issue - those theories
are examples of scientific method, and though the particular results
may be presented as "established facts" there is a string of logical and
empirical support for them, extending back to first principles and
verifiable observation by humans using human senses. That logical
grounding is qualitatively different from the type of "analysis"
used by creationists.
Why is "scientific dogma" not an issue? There is much hidden controversy
in the scientific community over origins. The firm logical and empirical
support for much of what is presented as "established fact" in science
education is crumbling--not necessarily at the hands of creationists.
Darwinism is, for all practical purposes, dead and neo-Darwinism seems to
be following it. I would like to know what is going to be replacing them
since that does not seem to be common knowledge. I refer to books like
Norman Macbeth's "Darwin Retried", (I recently read an interesting interview
with Macbeth that appeared in the Spring 1982 issue of "Towards" magazine.)
and "The Neck of the Giraffe" by Francis Hitching. These men are by no
means creationists, but they admit to having a lot of common ground with
some of them.
I am also interested in discussion on the work of claddists (sp?), since, as
Macbeth points out, their work offers little support for the commonly accepted
form of phylogeny.
The "behind the scenes" view of the scientific community offered in
Nicholas Wade's recent book, "Betrayers of the Truth", does not lead me
to believe that scientific endeavor actually relies completely on the
use of pure logic and rests completely on empirical evidence. I find
it hard to believe that the authors of this book (Wade was a co-author)
do not know what they are talking about. They certainly have the
credentials to write on the subject (One of them worked as a writer
for the journal "Science" for 15 years). Their motive was not to deride
science but to give us an accurate view of how it actually works--even
with its problems--and to show that, though it is indispensable to
the well being of mankind, it is not as glorious as it appears.
In light of all this I hope you will forgive me for not having the
logical empiricist view of science that you do.
It spells the difference between what is science and what is not. Since
the creationists are unwilling to play that game and take their lumps
on the questions of refutability and logical consequences, they have
no place in science education. As a result, setting the question of
origins as a scientific question to be discussed among creationists
and anti-creationists has no meaning. Establishing net.origins with
that stated purpose concedes ahead of time something WHICH ISN'T
TRUE, namely that creation "science" is science. It makes further
debate specious.
By opposing the creation of a forum in which this "game" can be played
you prevent them from even having the chance to play it--thus assuring
that they won't. In my reading I have found some creationists who do
play the game you talk of and, of course, many who don't. But as I
stated in my proposal, I am not interested the arguments of those who
don't.
If there are any creationist with access to the net who would be willing
to submit their ideas to the refutation of scientists, how could you
expect them to do it in net.religion?
Anyway, you're vote counts against. I would like to hear from more people.
Mail your preference for the creation of net.origins to me and I will
post the consensus to the net.
Paul "empty mind" Dubuc
... cbosgd!cbscc!pmd