donald@utcsrgv.UUCP (Don Chan) (12/18/83)
I have mixed feelings towards net.origins. While I'm a firm believer in
free intellectual discussion, I get the feeling that net.origins would
quickly degenerate into tirades on theories of biology by NONBIOLOGISTS.
In other words, a bunch of non-experts sounding off on topics they know
little about (sorta like net.politics :-)
The original suggestion by Paul Dubuc struck me as a thinly veiled attempt
to introduce "scientific" creationism on the net. His true colors seem
to be revealed by the passage:
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", ... and "The Neck of the Giraffe" by Francis Hitching.
The net is not the place to teach biology.
It's obvious where Paul's learned his though, judging from his remarks
about Darwinism. Even Stephen Jay Gould wouldn't go that far, and he's
a real researcher in the field! I read Hitching's book, expecting an
overview of the current controversy in biology on the mechanism of
evolution. What I got was an fairly ignorant attack on straw men.
Forming your view of biological theories from mass-market books written
by non-professionals is not unlike gleaning knowledge on programming
language design from "101 BASIC programs for your PET" or learning
about aerospace engineering from "Flying Saucers have Landed".
The same goes for discussing evolution (lets call a spade a spade--
that's what'll be discussed in net.origins) on the net.
To be blunt, "scientific" creationism is pseudoscience, in much the
same way that Velikovsky's and Von Daniken's theories were
pseudoscience. Is there a place for such stuff on the net?
On the whole then, I'd say it would be best to remain conservative and
nix net.origins. Or failing that, perhaps rename the group to
net.pseudoscience so UFO fans can tell us all about how astronomers
and physicists are wrong, and that you can get from here to Tau Ceti IV
in less than 4 hours because their Vrondoovian friends that they
telepathically communicate with do it all the time using their
Scalar-Boson Space-drive.
--
Don Chan, University of Toronto Department of Computer Science
{ utzoo linus ihnp4 floyd allegra uw-beaver
ubc-vision cornell watmath hcr decwrl }!utcsrgv!donaldbch@unc.UUCP (12/19/83)
I have to concur with Don Chan in not wanting net.origins created. I think that net.religion continues to have room in it for discussion of origins and, if holders of some specific theory of origins really feel their theory is scientific, then they can submit it to places where real scientists hang out, like net.physics and net.biology, where it is more likely to be seen by someone who really knows the field. I, too, am tired of seeing pinhead's views of scientific procedures and methods being foisted on the public as the truth -- and am tired of seeing people trying to present straw men to an uninformed audience. If your theory is good, it will stand up under criticism. If not, then you probably deserve the flames you get. -- Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill (decvax!duke!unc!bch)
bbanerje@sjuvax.UUCP (B. Banerjee) (12/19/83)
I agree with those who wish to nix net.origins. My reasons are
different.
Anyone wishing to discuss creation or any other pseudo-
science on the net should be able to do so. It probably would'nt
be sillier than many discussions currently going on. However, I
feel that interest in this group would be ephemeral (sp?) at best.
I am opposed to the arbitrary creation of newsgroups, unless the
traffic justifies it. My .newsrc file is already far too large.
If the proponents of this group use net.misc for a while,
a month should be enough to verify whether there is enough traffic
for the creation of a new newsgroup.
Regards,
--
Binayak Banerjee
{allegra | astrovax | bpa | burdvax}!sjuvax!bbanerjepmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (12/20/83)
[From Don Chan:]
I have mixed feelings towards net.origins. While I'm a firm believer in
free intellectual discussion, I get the feeling that net.origins would
quickly degenerate into tirades on theories of biology by NONBIOLOGISTS.
In other words, a bunch of non-experts sounding off on topics they know
little about (sorta like net.politics :-)
Are you saying that only experts on a certain subject should be allowed
to discuss that subject on a semi-public forum like USENET?
The original suggestion by Paul Dubuc struck me as a thinly veiled attempt
to introduce "scientific" creationism on the net. His true colors seem
to be revealed by the passage:
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", ... and "The Neck of the Giraffe" by Francis Hitching.
For those who want the context of the above quote, it was contained in
my response to an article "net.origins?" in the net.physics newsgroup.
I am not trying to "introduce" scientific creationism on the net. That
has already been done, to some extent, in net.religion. I'm sure you and
others would like to keep it there, but my intent is to remove it from
the religious context. I have already given my reasons for this in previous
articles. But, instead of answering them, it seems you would rather suspect
my motives of being insincere and my reasoning a "veil" to hide my
"true colors".
The net is not the place to teach biology.
Who's going to teach?
It's obvious where Paul's learned his though, judging from his remarks
about Darwinism. Even Stephen Jay Gould wouldn't go that far, and he's
a real researcher in the field! I read Hitching's book, expecting an
overview of the current controversy in biology on the mechanism of
evolution. What I got was an fairly ignorant attack on straw men.
Gould wouldn't go that far? Hitching quotes him as saying the following:
"I well remember how the synthetic theory [neo-Darwinism]
beguiled me with its unifying power when I was a graduate
student in the mid-1960's. Since then I have been watching
it slowly unravel as a universal description of evolution.
The molecular assault came first, followed by renewed attention
to unorthodox theories of speciation and by challenges at
the level of macroevolution itself. I have been reluctant
to admit it--since beguiling is often forever--but if [Ernst]
Mayr's characterization of the synthetic theory is accurate,
then that theory, as a general proposition, is effectively
dead, despite its persistence as test-book orthodoxy."
["Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?",
*Palaeobiology*, 6, 1 (1980), pp. 119-30]
Gould is definitely reluctant to admit this sort of thing to the general
public, however. As Macbeth points out in his interview with "Towards",
Gould assures the the public in "Natural History" that everything is
fine and that there is no problem with thinking that Darwin is the greatest
man that ever lived. Macbeth says that this kind of thing was the whole
point of his book "Darwin Retried".
I appreciate your willingness to share your opinion of Hitchings book, but
since you don't seem to be an expert in biology and have given me no reasoning
to substantiate your claim, I hope you will forgive me if I don't believe
you just because you say so. I would rather hope to read a critique of the
book written by a biologist. But where am I going to read it on the net?
(I assume you're also against net.biology, since you say that the net isn't
the place to "teach" biology.) I don't suppose you would think that Hitching's
criticism of creationists was also a "fairly ignorant attack on straw men".
He was probably "right on" there, huh?
Forming your view of biological theories from mass-market books written
by non-professionals is not unlike gleaning knowledge on programming
language design from "101 BASIC programs for your PET" or learning
about aerospace engineering from "Flying Saucers have Landed".
I suppose I should only let the Darwinists form my opinion as to the
viability of Darwinism? I agree with your above statement, but what is
your definition of a professional, anyway? In your criticism of "mass
market books written by non-professionals" you seem to be belittling
the source of argument rather than the argument itself. I assume we
should not take the books you mention above seriously because of their content,
not because of the fact they are available on the mass market or written by
non-professionals. So explain to me your objections to the content of the
books. Macbeth (and probably Hitching) is considered a member of the
scientific community in any case.
The same goes for discussing evolution (lets call a spade a spade--
that's what'll be discussed in net.origins) on the net.
I'm sure of it. But I think the name net.origins is better than net.evolution.
I don't see any reason to limit the discussion to evolution *per se*.
Paul Dubucstekas@hou2g.UUCP (12/20/83)
Com'on Duruc!!
Why must evolution theory always criticized on the basis of
modern theorists finding "problems" with Darwin's views?
Newton's theory of gravity was superceded by Einsteins
theory and no one argues that all of physics was toppled like
a house of cards. As far as I know, Newton's theory is still
adequate for all of NASA's navigational needs.
Darwin's theory is correct to the extent that man and chimpanzee
shared a common ancestor. Modern scientists (as opposed to "scientists")
may differ with Darwin in the details of the mutation and selection
process, but not on the *fundamental* question of common ancestry.
In so far as creation "science" is scientific, no evidence contradicts
the fundamental principles of Darwin's theory. In so far as creation
"science" is "scientific" it is irrelevant.
Let's keep the 12th century out of the 20th,
Jimpmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (12/22/83)
[from Jim Stekas:] Com'on Duruc!! Close enough. Why must evolution theory always criticized on the basis of modern theorists finding "problems" with Darwin's views? What is the matter here? First Don Chan belittles my citation of Hitching an Macbeth because an expert researcher in the field, like Steven J. Gould, wouldn't go as far as to say that neo-Darwinism is dead. Then when I point out that that same expert has said just that, you cry "foul". What other way is there to criticize it? I don't think you can equate Darwin's views with Darwinism or, especially, neo-Darwinism. Darwin only gave birth to Darwinism. The theory has been developed quite a bit since "Origin of the Species". It is not so much Darwin as Darwinism that has the problems. In the quote I gave, Steven Gould said that the synthetic theory (aka neo-Darwinism) is effectively dead. That theory is much more that just Darwin's views. I know that rejecting neo-Darwinism is not fatal to evolutionary theory. But it does indicate that there is a crisis in the evolutionary camp since nothing better is being advanced to replace it, as far as I know. Why are scientists content to let us go on believing in out moded theories, as if they were fact? I feel pretty sure that evolution will survive the crisis (it has a lot of momentum), but why hide the problems it currently faces? (Except, of course, to prevent creationists from capitalizing on the present weakness.) Newton's theory of gravity was superceded by Einsteins theory and no one argues that all of physics was toppled like a house of cards. As far as I know, Newton's theory is still adequate for all of NASA's navigational needs. Darwin's theory is correct to the extent that man and chimpanzee shared a common ancestor. Modern scientists (as opposed to "scientists") may differ with Darwin in the details of the mutation and selection process, but not on the *fundamental* question of common ancestry. It doesn't follow that because Einstein didn't topple Newton, Darwinism will not be removed by its successor (whatever that is). Do you mean we should all accept Darwin as being right even though the details of *why* he is right or *how* it all happened are not sound? Why is it so important that we hold no doubts about neo-Darwinism? It seems to me that if scientists cannot tell us the details of how macroevolution has taken place yet say that we are to accept it has having happened anyway, there is a problem. The "details" of mutation and selection seem to me to be very important in supporting the assertion that it did occur. To the same degree that the details of a theory is unsound that theory is composed of *ad hoc* assumptions. I, for one, am tired of seeing things like Carl Sagan waving his "magic wand" before his TV audience and showing a fish become a reptile, then a bird or mammal, then and ape, then a man--as if it were all that simple! Who cares about details, right? Accept it as a fact now and the details will eventually be worked out. In so far as creation "science" is scientific, no evidence contradicts the fundamental principles of Darwin's theory. In so far as creation "science" is "scientific" it is irrelevant. Neo-Darwinism is probably the best evolutionary theory of origins we now have. But does being the best make it good? Saying that no evidence contradicts it is not the same as saying all the evidence supports it. It depends on what evidence is considered relevant and whether the weight of that evidence really compels us to accept the theory as fact. It seems you haven't noticed that I have not tried to argue that creationism is scientific. I am, however, willing to consider some of it as such. Criticizing Darwinian theories of origins does not necessarily score points for creationism (and vise-versa, I suppose). It seems, though, that anyone who is even willing to entertain creationist ideas is counted as a whole hearted supporter of everything the biblical fundamentalist creationist movement stands for and an enemy of reason and science. I'm tired of being pushed into that pigeon-hole, but I'm not walking into Darwin's either. Anyway, I'm sure you and others will be pleased that I now see that a net.origins newsgroup is probably not a good idea. I intend to give my reasons for reconsidering in a separated article in net.news.group. (As if anyone is really interested.) Paul Dubuc
bch@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes ) (12/23/83)
In the interest of order, I am going to attempt to move the discussion of creationism vs. Darwinism (or whatever) to net.misc as was suggested by somebody. I am submitting a response in that newsgroup to Paul Dubuc's submission. Actually (to keep this relevant to net.news.group) this discussion is evolving (if you'll pardon the expression) into a discussion of the philosophy of science so it could well be placed there -- but I dare not suggest that! -- Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill (decvax!duke!unc!bch)
ellis@flairvax.UUCP (12/23/83)
I propose that we create `net.metaphysics' instead of `net.origins'. Net.origins is designed to be the sink for creation debates as well as for discussions about the origin of other `cosmic' phenomena so poorly understood by scientists that people from non-scientific backgrounds, for example, poets, philosophers, LSD casualties, Zen fascists, North Dakotans, and maybe even Christians, can reasonably offer contributions of equal value. Some people want to create net.origins to get the creation debate out of their newsgroup. I sympathize. That debate in its current form does NOT belong in net.physics! But when the creation debate has met its maker, we will be stuck with another overly narrow, dead newsgroup. A newsgroup needs to have several simultaneous discussions to stay alive, so that the momentum can jump from topic to topic. A net.metaphysics could have been the ideal place for topics too respectable for net.religion but too flaky for single discipline groups, like the potentially interesting conversations below that died by never really finding a good group: 1. the current creation debate 2. the Goedelian debate in net.politics/net.philosophy early this year 3. the `cause of awareness' discussion in net.religion a few months ago I could go on... We don't have a place where technical types and flakes can meet on equal terms to discuss topics so cosmic there is simply NO authority to tell you you're wrong, yet covers issues of equal interest to physicists, philosophers, mathematicians, spiritualists, and other nerds. As Paul Dubuc recently remarked: > Are you saying that only experts on a certain subject should be allowed > to discuss that subject on a semi-public forum like USENET? Net.metaphysics would be a place where no expert could possibly exist. -michael `I don't need your bogus attitudes I've got enough of my own' - ellis