mikec (04/20/83)
Ohboy, ohboy, ohboy - another creationist. Dennis Feucht seems
to have come forth to defend his faith scientifically. I could
ask for no more. This puts the current creationist count up to
at least three (that I know of, there are probably several more).
Perhaps Dennis Feucht, Larry Bickford and (personal mail) will
get together (other creationists are, of course, invited as well)
and show all of us the ERRORS in evolutionary theory and some of
the EVIDENCE that supports creationism (I must confess my total
ignorance in both of these topics). In fact, I would be tickled
at least three shades beyond pink if they would also enlist the
aid of their favorite creationist organizations! (Lots of Fun!)
Instead of directly addressing any of the topics that are being
discussed on the net, Dennis has chosen to bombard us with a list
of books (at least some of which are written by fundamentalists)
that we are apparently supposed to go buy or look up in a public
library. Why, do you suppose, didn't he choose to impart some of
the profound wisdom of these authors to us directly? Then, if he
had made a good point, we could go look up his references to see
if his point was valid. Of course, his claims couldn't be mere
hyperbole; he just couldn't be trying to get us to waste time in
the library, searching for evidence that refutes our claims, now
could he? In science, the burden of proof is on the claimant. If
someone claims that fairies exist, then that person must provide
evidence to support his (or her) claims. I (and others) claim to
have found evidence of Biblical contradictions, absurdities, etc.
I have provided evidence to support my claims. If my claims are
not valid, then the burden of proof is on the believers (or any-
one else for that matter) to show why. We are patiently waiting.
(from dennisf) :
"... Donald MacKay, effectively deals with some common
objections to Xn faith by uncovering their fallacies. One
of them is "scientific reductionism", which has been
demonstrated several times on this net."
Donald Mackey is one of several evangelical Christians who are
actively trying to save the Bible by criticizing science. Before
going out and buying all of Mackey's books, I recommend that any
interested individuals first check Mackey's credibility by read-
ing the August 6, 1982 issue of Christianity Today (pages 18-19).
The title of this enlightening article is "The Two Faiths Tied
Together". Apparently, science is just another "faith" (religion)
to Mackey. I found Mackey's answer to "Do you distinguish natural
forces from supernatural forces?" particularly interesting. Also,
note Mackey's answer to "What is the future of the relationship
of science and Biblical faith?":
"... If we do not learn the lessons from the confusion of the
past, there is a real danger that we will set the clock back A
HUNDRED YEARS. ... I hope, however, that in God's providence
we can yet win through to the sort of harmony there was THREE
CENTURIES AGO when modern science was founded in the days of
the first Royal Society members." (emphasis mine).
Besides the obvious contradiction, three centuries ago the church
was persecuting heretics (anyone saying anything contradicting
the Bible). There are other groaners in this interview as well.
Mackey's current claim is that modern scientific techniques can
not be used to evaluate the "truth" of the Bible. To properly
"interpret" the meaning of the Bible, one must "think" like the
Biblical authors. This "thinking", of course, renders all ancient
myths and fables absolutely true (since the people in primitive
times "thought" them to be true). Mackey is only interested in
saving the Bible; saving any other myths is just a side effect.
Also note that there is an interview with Robert Jastrow in the
same issue of Christianity Today (pages 14-18). This interview
is titled (appropriately enough) "A Scientists Caught Between Two
Faiths." I found it even funnier than Mackey's interview. Jastrow
has been promoting nonsense for some time now. For an example of
his absurd(ly wild) statements about evolution see the Skeptical
Inquirer "Science and Evolution in the Public Eye" by Laurie R.
Godfrey (Volume IV No. 1 page 30). For some very good refutations
of Jastrow's ignorant claims (by Responsible Scientists) see the
Skeptical Inquirer "Science and the Mountain Peak" by Isaac Asimov
(Volume V Number 2, page 42) and Free Inquiry Volume 2 number 2.
(I will cover any of these topics in more detail upon request.)
(from dennisf) :
"Also, see Owen Gingerich's recent article in *Scientific
American* on Galileo."
Owen Gingerich is yet another evangelical Christian. He, like
Dennis Feucht, belongs to the ASA (more about this group later).
I definitely recommend that all interested parties read Owen's
article in the August 1982 issue of Scientific American. Owen is
certain that the church could not have made such a mistake. His
claims, absurd as they might seem, are 1) Galileo committed "an
elementary blunder of logic" 2) the church condemned Galileo's
endorsement of the Copernican system for "potentially fallacious
logic" which might cause "confusion in the popular mind" (and not
heresy)! The church imprisoned Giordano Bruno for six years in
their dungeons for, among other things, endorsing the Copernican
system and claiming that "witches" were merely deranged old women
and then finally burned him at the stake on February 17,1600 just
thirty three years earlier than Galileo's trail. Robert Cardinal
Bellarmine (the world's greatest theologian) convicted Bruno (and
had him burned to death) and later tried Galileo for suspicion of
heresy. De Dominis, Archbishop of Spalatro, died in the dungeons
of the Inquisition for scientific heresies and his body and books
were publically burned only eight years before Galileo's trial.
Then Galileo was forced to recant on his knees after having been
intimidated by the church (the standard path to truth). Galileo's
recantation reads "...abjure, curse, and detest the error and the
heresy of the movement of the earth." The church placed the works
of Copernicus in the "Index Librorum Prohibitorum" (the Forbidden
Index) and remained against the rotation of the earth until about
1835. As if this weren't bad enough, the Inquisition ordered the
substitution of the word "notorious" in a scientific work that
referred to Galileo as "renowned". The church forbade any epitaph
to be placed on Galileo's tomb without their censorship for over
100 years. Like most true believers (that I know of) Owen totally
fails to provide any evidence to prove his claims while providing
considerable evidence that refutes them! Needless to say, Owen
Gingerich has been besieged with letters. Gingerich's retractions
appear in the March, 1983 issue of Scientific American. Here he
claims to have "forgotten" some of the facts (against his claims)
that were in one of his references. He seems to have changed his
tactics slightly, since he is now claiming that Galileo was not
"officially" condemned for heresy. Some people never learn. This
is not the most absurd claim to come from the ASA. A far more
bizarre claim can be found in the December 1981 issue (page 225).
The author (Jerry Bergman) states :
"... The resistance to the heliocentric position is often seen
as emanating primarily from the Catholic Church for religious
reasons. It is more accurate to say that the resistance was
primarily from the academic community who used the church as
a tool to oppress a belief they felt was incorrect and required
a thorough re-evaluation of the secular view of the universe
but only a minor change in the sacred view of the universe."
Firstly, the church controlled the "secular" community and they
also used Biblical verses as an argument against heliocentricity.
Both the Catholic and the Protestant church leaders made several
severe statements (based on the Bible) against heliocentricity.
Secondly, the Bible explicitly states that the earth doesn't move
and the earth was created before the sun and stars. This is, of
course, totally at odds with modern science. How Amazing! I would
never be so foolish as to claim that NO new evidence could ever
be found to vindicate the Catholic (and Protestant) church in the
Galileo affair; however, current evidence suggests that yet more
whitewashing is forthcoming. If anyone would like to hear a more
thorough refutation of Owen Gingerich's claims then contact Jeff
Mayhew (tektronix!teklabs!jeffma) or me (tektronix!teklabs!mikec).
(from dennisf) :
"... the *Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation*
is a good source of articles on science/Christianity. The ASA
is an organization of (evangelical) Xns interested in the
relationship of science and Xn faith."
There are several fundamentalist Christian organizations that
CLAIM to be scientific. Is the ASA just another fundamentalist
Christian pseudo-scientific organization? I will now present the
facts about this group and let the reader decide if the ASA is
a scientific or religious (or both or neither) organization.
The American Scientific Affiliation (abbr. ASA) was founded in
1941 by a handful of Missouri Synod Lutherans (fundamentalists).
They had become alarmed over the possible acceptance of evolution
over the Biblical creation myths given in Genesis. Their general
goal was to develop "scientific" arguments against evolutionary
theory. Note that Science welcomes (constructive) criticism and
is even based on skepticism (evidence is absolutely necessary).
However, the evidence supporting evolution was so massive that
"theistic evolutionists" (a combination of special creation and
evolution) began to dominate the group. This, of course, caused
considerable friction with other members of the group who wanted
to strictly oppose evolutionism. In 1963, several of the members
left the ASA to form "The Creation Research Society" (one of the
largest pseudo-scientific fundamentalist organizations). These
"scientific creationists" generally interpret the Genesis myths
in the King James Version of the Bible literally and try to find
"scientific" evidence to support their religious beliefs. The
majority of these "scientific creationists" are college-educated
fundamentalist Christians with strong commitments to both science
(primarily technology and engineering since the hard sciences are
simply too much for their belief systems to handle) and a literal
interpretation of the Bible. Like most fundamentalist Christian
organizations, the ASA requires members to sign a statement of
belief (NO scientific organization requires such a statement).
I have listed the entire uncensored (unedited) ASA pledge below.
"Members of both organizations endorse the following statement
of faith: (1) The Holy Scriptures are the inspired Word of God,
the only unerring guide of faith and conduct. (2) Jesus Christ
is the Son of God and through His Atonement is the one and only
Mediator between God and man. (3) God is the Creator of the
physical universe. Certain laws are discernible in the manner
in which God upholds the universe. The scientific approach is
capable of giving reliable information about the natural world"
In short, to be a member of the ASA, you MUST be a believer and
non-believers are NOT allowed. The ASA has been engaged in trying
to reconcile modern science with the Bible for a number of years.
(from dennisf) :
"In spite of the "objectivity" of heavy sarcasm, recent
criticisms of specific Bible texts have often displayed a
common fallacy which has nothing to do with the plausibility
of biblical faith in itself."
I am basically lethargic (like a troll) and aside from eating
live rats now and then, I mostly sleep under bridges. If someone
believes in fairies (based on faith), that is fine with me. That
is their personal right, and I would NEVER even think of taking
that right away from them. However, from time to time some real
Bozo comes along and tries to defend his or her faith by bending
modern science into whatever shape is necessary to conform to
their silly beliefs. When that occurs, I immediately WAKE from my
stupor, BITE my restraining chains completely in two, OBLITERATE
the door to my cage (in hasty exit), WRENCH the keyboard from the
nearest unfortunate (and cringing) programmer and start STAMPING
on the keys furiously with both feet. The only reason that people
around here tolerate me is because I'm housebroken (this puts me
over one notch above our ex-president's brother). While perhaps
stating the obvious, I must say that I try to weight my caustic
comments in proportion to the CERTAINTY with which absurd claims
are made by the (aforementioned) Bozo(s). Several people have
submitted (erroneous) articles to the net without resorting to
CERTAINTY, and I have responded without sarcasm. If ANYONE feels
that I have wronged them, then please write me. If I find the
(necessary) evidence compelling, I will publicly apologize and
mend my ways (sigh). Those who remain CERTAIN should prepare for
HARD TIMES. While Dennis is rather good at making an impassioned
plea for "objectivity", he is CERTAIN that (1) the Bible is the
word of God and (2) Jesus is the Son of God and (3) God made the
universe (see the ASA pledge above). How "objective" can you get?
By the way, Dennis, where IS Noah's ark and how old IS the earth?
Also, what scientific evidence supports the creation of the earth
BEFORE the sun, moon and stars and where IS the evidence showing
that the earth once stopped (and even reversed!) its rotation?
(from dennisf) :
"Finally, it seems strange that out-spoken atheists would
turn to *theologians* for their support - until it is discover-
ed that these theologians (and some non-Bible-scholars, like
Asimov, who find themselves experts in biblical studies anyway)
are also of an atheistic orientation!"
Asimov has never claimed to be an expert in Biblical studies.
>From Asimov's Guide to the Bible, page 9 (emphasis in original):
"I cannot pretend that in writing this book I am making any
significant ORIGINAL contribution to Biblical scholarship;
indeed, I am not competent to do so. All that I will have to
say will consist of material well known to students of ancient
history."
I find it very interesting that fundamentalists never want to
hear any criticism from non-believers. Science invites skeptics.
Dennis seems to be saying that if anyone wants to find out about
flying saucers then they should ask believers and never skeptics.
Here's what an early church father had to say about evangelists:
"By the command of the emperor Anastasius, the holy gospels,
as having been written by idiot evangelists, are (now)
censured and corrected."
(506 C.E.) Victor, Bishop of Tunis
(Taken from Cave's Historia Literaria Volume 1 page 414.)
REFERENCES :
The Crime of Galileo by Giorgio de Santillana 1955 Chicago
Galileo, Science, and the Church by Father Jerome J. Langford
1966 Michigan (Ann Arbor Paperback)
Galileo at Work His Scientific Biography by Stillman Drake
1978 Chicago
The Flood of Antievolutionism Where is the science in "scien-
tific creationism"? by Laurie R. Godfrey Natural History June
1981 pages 4-10 (about the ASA and other fundamentalists)
Fundamentals by Peter Steinhart Audubon September 1981 pages
5-14 (about the ASA and other fundamentalists)
The Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 1982
Evangelical Press Association (contains the ASA pledge)
Scientific American The Galileo Affair by Owen Gingerich
August 1982 pages 132-143
Scientific American Letters (column) March 1983 page 11
(contains Gingerich's apologetics : pun intended)
Asimov's Guide to the Bible by Isaac Asimov 1981 Avenel
Asimov is that thoroughly rotten atheist who has written more
science than all of the creationist organizations put together.
A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom
By Andrew Dickson White 1896 (Dover 1960) Vol. 1 pages 114-170
Fundamentalists shake with terror at the mere mention of White.
Evangelists try to make up for their ignorance with enthusiasm.
Micheal D. Cranford
Tektronix
Teklabsleichter (04/23/83)
First off, a thanks to Micheal Cranford for the article this is a reply to. It is one of the best-reasoned, best-written items to appear in this newsgroup so far. Keep it up! I would like to add an article to his reading list. It's quick, interesting reading, easy to find at any library; give it a try. The article is "Genesis vs. Geology", by Stephen Jay Gould, The Atlantic, September 1982. The basic thrust of the article is to examine the plausibility of the Great Flood, and in particular the plausibility of the various proposals "scientific creation- ists" have come up with to explain where the water came from and - it turns outs - the harder problem of where it went. Gould uses this discussion to form the basis of a general discussion of "scientific creationism" and the scientific creationists. -- Jerry decvax!yale-comix!leichter leichter@yale