garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary Samuelson) (01/28/84)
John Hobson writes: >>Creationists, in their "scientific" arguments, tend towards >>double-talk, mis-quotation, mis-representation, and outright fraud. >>A good example of this is their well-known "evolution defies the >>second law of thermodynamics" argument. Central to their reasoning >>is the notion that "uphill" processes cannot occur naturally. >>First, they have exaggerated the extent to which evolution is an >>uphill process, and secondly, they misinterpret the second law of >>thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics refers >>specifically to closed systems, but the earth's bioshere is not a >>closed system, since it is constantly receiving energy from the sun. Did you just say that 'exaggeration' and 'misinterpretation' are examples of "double-talk, mis-quotation, mis-representation, and outright fraud?" Or is my knowledge of English really that poor? >>Scientific creationism is an evangelical Christian movement of >>fundamentalist ministries dedicated not to the advancement of >>science but to the advancemanet of Biblical inerrancy often at the >>expense of science. The discourse of scientific creationism is an >>elaborate but confusing system of apologetics and polemics. It is >>designed to both defend Biblical "truths" and to undermine any >>scientific facts and theories that contradict creationist >>interpretations of Scripture. In some cases, Morris and his >>colleagues use ad hominem polemics to attack evolution, as when >>Albert Johnson claimed that evolution leads "to sensuality, >>carnalism, Bolshevism, and the Red Flag"; more often, they resort >>to obfuscation. I do not approve of ICR's tendency to use "ad hominem polemics" any more that you do. But, speaking of "ad hominem polemics," what do you call accusing someone of "double-talk, mis-quotation, mis-representation, and outright fraud?" Isn't it "ad hominem" to impugn someone's motives for asserting a given position? Isn't it possible that Drs. Gish and Morris sincerely believe what they say they believe? Or do you really think that they know that creationism is false, and are deliberately trying to "undermine scientific facts and theories?" I, for one, do not claim to understand the scientific arguments of either the evolutionists or the creationists; I have had very little training in Biology, or anthropology, or nuclear physics, or a hundred other -ologies and -ics. What I am therefore left with is that some highly educated people say that belief in evolution is grounded in firm scientific evidence, and that creationism is "pseuodo-science," and that other, equally educated people, say that belief in creationism is grounded in firm scientific evidence, and that evolution is "pseudo-science." Each side accuses the other of everything from being confused to deliberate fraud, with the intent to seize political power. The connection between the question of origins and political power is a bit fuzzy, as far as I am concerned, but each side thinks that if too many people believe the other, then society will be ruined. Now, since I do not have the requisite training to understand the arguments put forth by the combatants, I cannot know which side is correct and which incorrect. So, my choices are: 1) Accept evolution, without sufficient grounds. 2) Accept creation, without sufficient grounds. 3) Ignore the problem, on the grounds that it isn't really relevant to my life. 4) Refuse to accept either, until I am adequately trained in the appropriate fields. If I select 1 or 2, I will be accused, with some justification, of believing what I want to believe. Well, I guess everyone does that to some extent, or so I have been told, so maybe that is not too bad. If, on the other hand, I select choice 3, I may be contributing to the demise of society by negligence (supposing that the connection mentioned actually exists). And it is true that I have some stake in society continuing to function. But I do not have the time or other resources (read cash) to pursue choice 4. There must be other choices, or else reasons why one or more of the above choices aren't as irrational as they appear. Gary Samuelson