arndt@apple.DEC (01/14/85)
I'm so mad I could spit! If I hear one more turtle egg stink up the net with a mention of how Christians held back science by bringing charges against Galileo I'll . . . I'll . . . , well I'll do SOMETHING. And it won't be pretty! ALL scholars in the West at that time were Christians. Members of the Church. Those in power in the Church used their office to uphold THEIR view of astronomy. They were eventually (in light of the evidence) forced to give up their position but AT THE TIME it was not at all clear to most thinking 'scientists' whether the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system was going to be the accepted one. These men, in the Church, did nothing more or less than members of scientific bodies have done many times in the course of history and will likely do into the future. Argue and make pronouncements and enforce, by the rules of the society, THEIR viewpoint. It was a HUMAN thing they did to Galileo! Not a Christian thing, however much they couched their condemnation in terms of their authority as Churchmen as well as 'scientists'. It has long since been shown by biblical scholars of many stripes that the Bible does NOT hold to a Ptolemaic view of the universe. It simply uses figurative language to explain in a simple way wah what APPEARS to be happening when one looks at the heavens. Just like the ole weatherman who says, "The sun will rise . . . ." The Bible does not claim to be a science textbook. It couldn't be as I have previously pointed out. If it were exactly true, who could understand it? We hardly believe we (in the 20th or think we will in the 21st for that matter) have an exact model of the universe now. So how could we recognize the 'real' one? [That's 20th century above, of course - sorry flying fingers outpace brain, or visa versa - (run with it Rosen)] But go ahead, use the cant in lieu of thinking and investigating. Signing off, Ken Arndt
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (01/17/85)
Arndt apologizes for the persecution of Galileo: > These men, in the Church, did nothing more > or less than members of scientific bodies have done many times in the > course of history and will likely do into the future. Argue and make When else in the history of science have one of the proponents of rival scientific theories tried to use the legal system to 'prove' (or at least or at least prevent the other theory from being heard) their own theories? Nowhere! Disagreeing scientists argue back and forth in journals and letters, propose experiments to determine which (if either) theory is correct, etc. Wait a minute! I just remembered something. the 'Nowhere!' above is wrong. Creationists have often tried to use the legal system in this way. You'd have thought they'd have learned their lesson from their mistake with Galileo. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Know thou, O rash and foolish mortal, that this is none other than the infamous subterranean abode of Zazamanc the Archmage. Abandon hope, all ye who linger here."
mat@hou4b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) (01/18/85)
>Arndt apologizes for the persecution of Galileo: >> These men, in the Church, did nothing more >> or less than members of scientific bodies have done many times in the >> course of history and will likely do into the future. Argue and make > > When else in the history of science have one of the proponents of rival >scientific theories tried to use the legal system to 'prove' (or at least >or at least prevent the other theory from being heard) their own theories? >Nowhere! Disagreeing scientists argue back and forth in journals and letters, Seems to me that the USSR for many years supressed Darwinian Evolution, while supporting Lamark's theory of inherited adaptation. An article some years ago (Sci. Am.?) explained that this was a political act ... the fellow in charge of the ``Acadamy of Sciences'' was using this pet theory to inflate his importance and maintain/expand his power base. And then there was the time that Lenin made it a crime against the state to propound the ``false'', ie ``counterrevolutionary'' theory that fatigue was a warning from the organism that it was near the point of damage or failure. Seems to me that something like that also happened with plate tectonics. At least in Galileo's case the fathers of the church offered him a way to publish without punishment (this from a Sci. Am. article also). They said that Astronomy enjoyed a special place among fields of study ... that it was entitled to certain hypothetical statements that might not be appropriate elsewhere. If Galileo had said ``I have found that the Solar System behaves AS IF IT WERE HELIOCENTRIC'' the pope would have overruled the objections ... but Galileo stuck to his point. He declared (rightfully, it is true) that the S.S. IS heliocentric. This was much a case of refusal to acceede to *realpolitik* as a case of suppression, since Galileo was essentially told what the scoop was. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) hou4b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
bermes@ihu1m.UUCP (Terry Bermes) (01/18/85)
Jeff Sonntag: > When else in the history of science have one of the proponents of rival >scientific theories tried to use the legal system to 'prove' (or at least >or at least prevent the other theory from being heard) their own theories? >Nowhere! Disagreeing scientists argue back and forth in journals and letters, >propose experiments to determine which (if either) theory is correct, etc. > Wait a minute! I just remembered something. the 'Nowhere!' above is >wrong. Creationists have often tried to use the legal system in this way. >You'd have thought they'd have learned their lesson from their mistake with >Galileo. Is that why the creationist theory is prevented from being taught in the schools by the legal system? Who is using the legal system to silence whom? Terry Bermes
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (01/18/85)
People, go out and read history. Go out and read the chapter on Galileo in Koestlers *The Sleepwalkers* if you don't have time for a lot of history. Galileo was a blighted, pompous fool. He was also a genius, but that hardly excuses a lot of his behaviour. The Church was perfectly willing for him to teach his thoery *as a theory*. The Church was not willing to let him hold parties where he made fun of the Pope, and called all the religous scientific minds of the time names. At the time they placed Galileo under house arrest (the stories about the time in prison are just so much BS) *there* *was* *no* *evidence* *that* *Galileo* *was* *correct*. In many aspects, there was evidence that he was wrong. He never understood about tides, for instance, which Kepler had already figured out. The neat stories you hear about Galileo's experiments -- like dropping cannon shot off the tower of Pisa -- were almost all done by Church members who wanted to test his theories. (Guess what? You drop a big cannon shot and a little cannon shot off the tower and the big one lands first. Some churchmen used this to demonstrate that all things do not fall at the same rate. It sounds pretty reasonable to me -- too bad they didn't know about air resistence.) If Galileo had been able to accept that he had to find evidence that the Ptolemic model of the universe was incorrect, and if he had not meddled in politics, not swindled the Pope out of a great deal of money (who do you think financed Galileo? In part it was the Church.) he would have been fine. Let's get this straight -- the Church did a fantastically large number of terrible, evil, and totally abhorant things. If you wind me up I can give you a long history of the treatment of witches, heretics, and non-believers all through the middle ages, but I could probably post a hundered lines a day for about a year... and it would all get pretty boring. But their treatment of Galileo is *not* what they should be damned for. If you want a real scientific hero who was treated badly by the Church, try Kepler. Kepler had to keep wasting precious time trying to keep the local authorities from burning his mother. . . . Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (01/19/85)
-- >> Is that why the creationist theory is prevented from being >> taught in the schools by the legal system? Who is using the legal >> system to silence whom? >> Terry Bermes That's false. The proscription is against teaching creationism *AS SCIENCE*. And it derives from creationists' attempts to get creationism injected into science curricula by force of law. The traditional manner by which theories wind up in science classes is by getting published in scientific journals, and eventually winding up in the common pool of accepted scientific doctrine. It would be a shame, though, to leave creationism out of any course in comparative religion or literature on cosmogeny. But let's move this to net.origins if there's any more to say. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 18 Jan 85 [29 Nivose An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (01/20/85)
In article <239@ihu1m.UUCP> bermes@ihu1m.UUCP (Terry Bermes) writes: > Is that why the creationist theory is prevented from being taught in > the schools by the legal system? Who is using the legal system to silence > whom? 1) Creationism is not science. It is religion. Christians and only christians are the sole proponents. It comes straight from some of the many "literal" interpretations of the Bible, according to many leading proponents. This same finding has repeatedly been made by courts of law around the United States. If you wish to debate this, try net.origins. 2) State support of religion is banned by our constitution. That is why creationist "theory" is prevented from being taught in the schools by the legal system. If you wish to change the constitution, feel free to try. For the sake of nettiquette, please place responses in net.origins only. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (01/22/85)
>1) Creationism is not science. It is religion. Christians and only Christians > are the sole proponents. This statement is not quite accurate. Ultra-orthodox Jews also believe in the Genesis account of creation. And we should not forget Khumeini and his followers, they all belong to the creationists' crowd. The Ultra-orthodox in Israel tried, unsuccessfully, to introduce creationism pseudo-science into the public school curriculum. (If they were successful they could potentially endanger Israel's security, as Israel's existence depends heavily on science and technology.) I also read that the Ultra-orthodox in Israel were planning a creationism conference. American creationists (Fundamental Christians) were supposed to speak in that conference. This seems to be a bizarre situation, considering the deep rooted Ultra-orthodox Jews' resentment of Christianity! -- Yosi Hoshen, Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, (312)-979-7321, Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
emjej@uokvax.UUCP (01/23/85)
/***** uokvax:net.religion / mhuxt!js2j / 10:40 am Jan 17, 1985 */ Arndt apologizes for the persecution of Galileo: > These men, in the Church, did nothing more > or less than members of scientific bodies have done many times in the > course of history and will likely do into the future. Argue and make When else in the history of science have one of the proponents of rival scientific theories tried to use the legal system to 'prove' (or at least or at least prevent the other theory from being heard) their own theories? /* ---------- */ That's not all. They also showed him the rack and other instruments of persuasion--just showed him. That was enough. (Far be it from me to imply cowardice or anything of the sort on Galileo's part--I should be a tenth the man he was...) James Jones
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (01/25/85)
In article <945@ihuxn.UUCP> jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) writes: > > >1) Creationism is not science. It is religion. Christians and only > > Christians are the sole proponents. > > This statement is not quite accurate. > Ultra-orthodox Jews also believe in the Genesis account of creation. > And we should not forget Khumeini and his followers, they all belong > to the creationists' crowd. Ooops. You're right. Ok, let me rephrase it, to make it more accurate. Creationism is not science. It is religion. Those who believe in the (purported) authority of Genesis are the sole proponents. Thanks, Yosi. Any other criticisms? -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (01/30/85)
In article <331@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >In article <945@ihuxn.UUCP> jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) writes: >> >> >1) Creationism is not science. It is religion. Christians and only >> > Christians are the sole proponents. >> >> This statement is not quite accurate. >> Ultra-orthodox Jews also believe in the Genesis account of creation. >> And we should not forget Khumeini and his followers, they all belong >> to the creationists' crowd. > >Ooops. You're right. Ok, let me rephrase it, to make it more accurate. > >Creationism is not science. It is religion. Those who believe in the >(purported) authority of Genesis are the sole proponents. > >Thanks, Yosi. Any other criticisms? >-- > >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh Haven't you heard of the ICR (Institute of Creation Research) based in San Diego? There are hundreds of Biologists, Chemists, and Physicists who believe in creation science on the basis of scientific evidence alone. There is as much SCIENTIFIC evidence behind Creation theory as there is the Evolutionary theory. Please don't make statements that are not based on scientific facts such as: (Creationism is not science. It is religion.) If you would like some names, facts, etc. I would be glad to furnish them upon demand. Dan
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (01/31/85)
In article <259@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) writes: > >Haven't you heard of the ICR (Institute of Creation Research) based in >San Diego? There are hundreds of Biologists, Chemists, and Physicists >who believe in creation science on the basis of scientific evidence alone. >There is as much SCIENTIFIC evidence behind Creation theory as there is >the Evolutionary theory. Please don't make statements that are not based >on scientific facts such as: (Creationism is not science. It is religion.) >If you would like some names, facts, etc. I would be glad to furnish them >upon demand. > > Dan The ICR is not an accepted scientific organization, and it was most definately founded on religious ground not scientific. In fact it is closely associated with Dr Morris who is a *minister* not a scientist(he is pastor of a church not far from here). I would be very surprised to find out that any members of that organization are not *also* members of the orthodox/fundamentalist wing of some religion which accepts the authority of Genisis, which is what it would take to establish that it is *not* a religious "theory". If the "scientific" evidence for creationism you are talking about is the stuff I have seen(the SOR pamphlets, other tracts, and a couple of "scientific" books) it is totally worthless. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or quad1!psivax!friesen
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (02/01/85)
In article <259@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) writes: > In article <331@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > >Creationism is not science. It is religion. Those who believe in the > >(purported) authority of Genesis are the sole proponents. > > Haven't you heard of the ICR (Institute of Creation Research) based in > San Diego? There are hundreds of Biologists, Chemists, and Physicists > who believe in creation science on the basis of scientific evidence alone. > There is as much SCIENTIFIC evidence behind Creation theory as there is > the Evolutionary theory. Please don't make statements that are not based > on scientific facts such as: (Creationism is not science. It is religion.) > If you would like some names, facts, etc. I would be glad to furnish them > upon demand. Regular readers of net.origins are well aware of the ICR and its claims. The scientific facts are that the "science" coming from the ICR is ludicrous. It is regularly discussed here in net.origins. If you would like to bring up some of those arguments, please feel welcome. But be prepared to defend them. My statement still holds true: those who believe in the (purported) authority of Genesis are the sole proponents of creationism. Even if they are also biologists, chemists, or physicists. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/02/85)
>Haven't you heard of the ICR (Institute of Creation Research) based in >San Diego? There are hundreds of Biologists, Chemists, and Physicists >who believe in creation science on the basis of scientific evidence alone. >There is as much SCIENTIFIC evidence behind Creation theory as there is >the Evolutionary theory. Please don't make statements that are not based >on scientific facts such as: (Creationism is not science. It is religion.) >If you would like some names, facts, etc. I would be glad to furnish them >upon demand. > > Dan I guess none of them communicate with this net, then. What we see here is a mixture of pseudo-science, fable, and falsehood masquerading as scientific creationism. Creationism may not be religion, but it seems to be linked with some kind of mental pathology that causes very selective vision when it comes to evidence from the whole breadth of scientific observation. I doubt there is anyone reading this wierd and wonderful newsgroup who has NOT heard of the ICR, but the few hundred (are there really?) "Biologists, Chemists, and Physicists who believe in creation science on the basis of scientific evidence alone" hardly provide evidence of the scientific credibility of the enterprise. After all, when you try to overturn an enormously wide interlinked mesh of evidence and theory, you have to supply a satisfactory counter- theory for ALL of it, not just one tiny bit like whether species evolve or were created more-or-less as they are now. You must account for the facts of high-energy physics and astrophysics, sociology and botany, geology and chemistry .... Your creation "science" fails utterly to do this. All we EVER hear from creation "scientists" is `evolution cannot account for this "fact" or that.' Half the time the "facts" are false, half the time there is no problem accounting for them within "normal" science, and a microscopic proportion of the time (haven't seen one yet) a serious problem is illuminated. But never have I seen on this net a POSITIVE argument supporting creation science. Normal science is full of discarded theories, theories that looked good and were accepted by everyone. They were not discarded without a fight, but they were discarded finally when there was both a new theory and evidence that indicated the superiority of the new theory. People like to hold onto their old ideas, which is why creationists still exist, over a century after better theories were developed. But let's not keep pretending that creation science exists, without giving evidence IN FAVOUR OF CREATIONISM. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (02/02/85)
In article <259@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) writes: >Haven't you heard of the ICR (Institute of Creation Research) based in >San Diego? There are hundreds of Biologists, Chemists, and Physicists >who believe in creation science on the basis of scientific evidence alone. >There is as much SCIENTIFIC evidence behind Creation theory as there is >the Evolutionary theory. Please don't make statements that are not based >on scientific facts such as: (Creationism is not science. It is religion.) >If you would like some names, facts, etc. I would be glad to furnish them >upon demand. > Dan I saw the director of ICR (name escapes me, this was in 1981) give a talk in Berkeley. Quite a show. His "scientific" arguments were totally fallacious. For example, he stated that "evolutionists" believed that the whale evolved from a cow-like animal (reasonably true), and he "debunked" this by wondering whether it was the front end of the cow that turned into a whale head first, or was it the tail that turned into a fluke (he showed a picture of both possibilities). Since no scientists argues that either happened, this was a debunking a *self-invented* argument. It is easy to show your opponents are stupid if you get to put words in their mouths. He also threw up a slide of a simple amino acid, and showed how improbable it would be that this sequence necessary for life would assemble at random from the "primodial soup". This is true, but (a) it is not necessarily true that any given amino acid arose randomly (as opposed to arising under natural selection pressures), and (b) it assumes that this amino acid is the only possible life-supporting one of its kind. There might be billions of alternatives which would work as well, but only one is necessary. His argument is akin to the following scenario: Let us roll 1 million dice (6 sided). When they are rolled, any given result is wildly improbable (6 ^ 1e9), but I am guaranteed that I will get one result. Then this guy comes along and says "Oh, that particular configuration is so improbable some intelligence must have set it up". In fact, despite Dan's assertion, he gave NOT ONE single piece of scientific evidence to back up creation. He spent his entire time "debunking". These are wildly distinct activities; to argue (with good rhetoric but bad science) that a theorem is true is one thing; to have scientific evidence to back up a different view is another. Since his lecture was precisely to explain "Scientific Creationism", he clearly either had nothing to explain or did not think it would stand up to scrutiny. If you do have something better (i.e. scientific evidence), I would be interested in seeing it posted. I have yet to see any that even masqueraded as fact -- all I have seen (on this and other occassions) is continual "debunking", very little of it very effective, scientifically speaking. -- Ken Arnold ================================================================= Of COURSE we can implement your algorithm. We've got this Turing machine emulator...
gjphw@iham1.UUCP (02/02/85)
In response to an overly strong statement about the classification of creationism, a comment arrived: From ihnp4!pesnta!pertec!scgvaxd!dan Wed Dec 31 18:00:00 1969 (!!) > Haven't you heard of the ICR (Institute of Creation Research) based in > San Diego? There are hundreds of Biologists, Chemists, and Physicists > who believe in creation science on the basis of scientific evidence alone. > There is as much SCIENTIFIC evidence behind Creation theory as there is > the Evolutionary theory. Please don't make statements that are not based > on scientific facts such as: (Creationism is not science. It is religion.) The ICR is an organization of approximately 800 individuals who subscribe to and support special creationism (i.e., cosmogenesis as literally interpreted from the Bible). One of the requirements for entry into this organization is an advanced degree in science. In fact, there are no physicists in this organization, a few inactive biologists and chemists, with the overwhelming majority of the members holding master's degrees or better in engineering. The constitution of the ICR has been discussed many times before in this newsgroup, and will undoubtedly be discussed many times again in the future. Furthermore, I am prepared to dispute the claim that *hundreds* of people in science believe in creation science on the basis of the evidence alone. The number of individuals with advanced training in science, not engineering, who hold with special creationism is no more than one hundred. Also, fight the tendency to ascribe any criticism of Darwin's mechanisms for evolution as a vote for creationism. Since my background is in physics, I can personally dispute only those topics where creationism impinges on my speciality. About two months ago, several contributors, including myself, brought out topics from creationism which either violated the accepted facts or common understanding from physics, chemistry, and astronomy (areas ancillary to the creationism-evolution debate). Where specific predictions are possible, creationism either agrees with mainstream science or violates experimental and observational data in these areas. There is almost no support for creationism in physics. The summary statement that *creationism is religion* is made in agreement with rulings by two federal judges, one in Arkansas and one in Louisiana. At least for Arkansas, the suit against the state's Balanced Treatment Act was brought by the ACLU on behalf of 15 religious and civic leaders in the state, and was not an attempt by mainstream scientists to protect their turf. One of the objectives for this newsgroup was to establish the arguments for and against creationism. The assertion that there is *...much scientific evidence behind creation theory ...* is exactly the basis of this debate, and has yet to be substantiated in my humble opinion. -- Patrick Wyant AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL) *!iham1!gjphw
tet@uvaee.UUCP (Thomas E. Tkacik) (02/04/85)
> >Ooops. You're right. Ok, let me rephrase it, to make it more accurate. > > > >Creationism is not science. It is religion. Those who believe in the > >(purported) authority of Genesis are the sole proponents. > > Haven't you heard of the ICR (Institute of Creation Research) based in > San Diego? There are hundreds of Biologists, Chemists, and Physicists > who believe in creation science on the basis of scientific evidence alone. > There is as much SCIENTIFIC evidence behind Creation theory as there is > the Evolutionary theory. Please don't make statements that are not based > How many of these scientists are not Christians or Jewish? They believe in the authority of Genesis, and formed the ICR only later when a solely religious basis for creationism proved to be unconvincing. If you do not believe this, look up their early writings. --- Tom Tkacik ...!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!uvaee!tet
teitz@aecom.UUCP (02/05/85)
Why do you speak only of the ultra-Orthodox. I am not "ultra"-Orthodox, just a simple Orthodox Jew, and I believe in creationism. I find scientific explainations of creation very difficult, as I once wrote here in this net. There is nothing wrong with creationism. It does not in any way contradict science. The Israelis could live very well and defend themselves very nicely without te big bang theory or any other "scientific" theory of creation. Eliyahu Teitz. > > >1) Creationism is not science. It is religion. Christians and only Christians > > are the sole proponents. > > This statement is not quite accurate. > Ultra-orthodox Jews also believe in the Genesis account of creation. > And we should not forget Khumeini and his followers, they all belong > to the creationists' crowd. > > The Ultra-orthodox in Israel tried, unsuccessfully, to introduce > creationism pseudo-science into the public school curriculum. > (If they were successful they could potentially endanger Israel's > security, as Israel's existence depends heavily on science and > technology.) >
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (02/11/85)
In article <1125@aecom.UUCP> teitz@aecom.UUCP writes: > > Why do you speak only of the ultra-Orthodox. I am not "ultra"-Orthodox, > just a simple Orthodox Jew, and I believe in creationism. I find scientific > explainations of creation very difficult, as I once wrote here in this net. > There is nothing wrong with creationism. It does not in any way contradict > science. The Israelis could live very well and defend themselves very nicely > without te big bang theory or any other "scientific" theory of creation. > > Eliyahu Teitz. > Just because you find something "difficult" is *not* a valid reason to reject it. I have difficulty understanding quantum physics, should I therefor reject it it? If creationists ever did *real* origunal research there might not be any problem with it, but as has been pointed out all they do is rehash old argument *against* evolution. This leads to stagnation and cessation of progress. THIS is where the danger to science, and perhaps Israeli defense comes in, the habit of *not* thinking, just accepting old answers. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or quad1!psivax!friesen