lew@ihuxr.UUCP (02/08/84)
A few weeks ago, Paul Dubuc graciously sent me a spare copy of ORIGINS RESEARCH (Vol. 6, no. 1), published by "Students for Origins Research" or SOR. He has stated that this organization "seems to consider both sides objectively", and he recommends this tabloid to those seeking a balanced view of the "Creation/Evolution controversy". Incidentally, this issue contains "A Reply to Niles Eldredge", which Paul transcribed onto the net last May. The paper is interesting, but I don't think I can agree that it is objective. It is in fact the organ of a self-professed creationist organization. Pauls characterization is evidently inspired by their practice of "giving evolutionists some space" in the letters column and in some feature articles. This is commendable, but the editorial point of view shows through quite clearly. I said it was interesting. Check this item: Most college students head south for the beaches during spring break. SOR President at Urbana, Ray Miller, also headed south but for different reasons - to discover fossilized footprints. Ray and SOR faculty advisor Professor M. E. Clark spent the last week in March on the McFall farm on the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas. There they joined Dr. Carl Baugh and others in the excavation of the Cretaceous limestone in a search for fossilized footprints. In all the group discovered 31 dinosaur prints, 3 barefoot human prints, and three possible moccasin prints. On the same page there are 2 photos, one of some footprints, and one of Dr. Carl Baugh working at the site. Net.religion readers might remember that Dr. Baugh is the one currently engaged in raising 3.5 million dollars to build an ark-shaped creationism museum near Glen Rose. In my opinion, the ark-museum casts a long, dark shadow over the scientific legitimacy of Dr. Baugh's paleontology. In Ray Miller's account of his Paluxy River excursion, he adopts the stance of a disinterested observer. He refers to creationists in the third person plural, as though not to include himself. Of course, he omits to mention his Presidency of the Urbana chapter of the SOR. And he presumes to lecture us on the requirements of objective judgement! Let me anticipate Ray's protestation that his occupancy of that office is irrelevant to his account. I'm sure that most people would consider it highly relevant. Would he have us believe that it just didn't occur to him to mention it? Well, I don't believe that. I think his whole account was an imposture. Lew Mammel, Jr. ihnp4!ihuxr!lew
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (02/08/84)
Ray Miller's Paluxy article hasn't arrived here yet, but I want
to respond to Lew Mammel's comments anyway, since my name was
mentioned:
A few weeks ago, Paul Dubuc graciously sent me a spare copy of ORIGINS
RESEARCH (Vol. 6, no. 1), published by "Students for Origins Research"
or SOR. He has stated that this organization "seems to consider both sides
objectively", and he recommends this tabloid to those seeking a balanced
view of the "Creation/Evolution controversy". Incidentally, this issue
contains "A Reply to Niles Eldredge", which Paul transcribed onto the net
last May.
The paper is interesting, but I don't think I can agree that it is
objective. It is in fact the organ of a self-professed creationist
organization. Paul's characterization is evidently inspired by their
practice of "giving evolutionists some space" in the letters column and
in some feature articles. This is commendable, but the editorial point
of view shows through quite clearly.
I'm glad you have found some of my articles worth saving, lew. As for my
statement back in May about ORIGINS RESEARCH, it was based on a limited
exposure to the tabloid. The issue you have is the only one I had seen
at the time. When I ordered their back issues I discovered that the purpose
of SOR was not to present and objective look at origins but a critique of
evolution (which is taught rather dogmatically, to say the least) and to
present alternate (creationist) interpretations of relevant scientific data.
And, you are right, I was very impressed with the fact that
they give evolutionists a voice in the publication. Especially since I
have NEVER seen any patently evolutionists publication do the same for
creationists! Can you or anyone give me an example of one? I would honestly
like to subscribe.
Also, you will notice from the same issue of OR that SOR maintains a
(for all practicle purposes) exaustive computer database containing references
relating to origins. ALL REFERENCES. Not just creationist ones. I thought
that providing that service was an awful lot of work to go through for an
organization biased toward creationism. I thought Lew might find this
particularly interesting in light of the fact that many of his attacks on
creationism center around the creationists misuse or ignorance of good
references.
I said it was interesting. Check this item:
Most college students head south for the beaches during spring
break. SOR President at Urbana, Ray Miller, also headed south
but for different reasons - to discover fossilized footprints.
Ray and SOR faculty advisor Professor M. E. Clark spent
the last week in March on the McFall farm on the Paluxy River
in Glen Rose, Texas. There they joined Dr. Carl Baugh and others
in the excavation of the Cretaceous limestone in a search for
fossilized footprints. In all the group discovered 31 dinosaur
prints, 3 barefoot human prints, and three possible moccasin prints.
On the same page there are 2 photos, one of some footprints, and one of
Dr. Carl Baugh working at the site. Net.religion readers might remember
that Dr. Baugh is the one currently engaged in raising 3.5 million dollars
to build an ark-shaped creationism museum near Glen Rose. In my opinion, the
ark-museum casts a long, dark shadow over the scientific legitimacy of
Dr. Baugh's paleontology.
You are welcome to your opinion. Only evolutionist paleontology is legitimate.
Is that it?
In Ray Miller's account of his Paluxy River excursion, he adopts the
stance of a disinterested observer. He refers to creationists in the
third person plural, as though not to include himself. Of course, he
omits to mention his Presidency of the Urbana chapter of the SOR. And
he presumes to lecture us on the requirements of objective judgement!
Let me anticipate Ray's protestation that his occupancy of that office
is irrelevant to his account. I'm sure that most people would consider
it highly relevant. Would he have us believe that it just didn't occur
to him to mention it? Well, I don't believe that. I think his whole
account was an imposture.
Yes, most people would consider it highly relevant, I think, because most
make a priori judgements of everything said by a creationists, dismissing
it as pseudoscience without consideration. I can understand Ray's position.
He probably should have identified himself as a creationist in the title
line to spare you from reading the article, right? Have you read anything else
he has posted? In other articles he has made no secret of his creationist
sympathies. Anyone who has read any good scientific journal knows that
the "objective", third person, is the style invariably used in scientific
writing. How come only creationists are being impostors when they write
in this style, Lew?
Lew, let me explain to you my motives for sending you that issue of OR.
I don't expect you to beleive me because, as you know very well, I am
(to say the least) a strong creationist sympathizer. But I'll explain it
anyway just to get it off my chest, OK?
Lest you suspect otherwise (and I feel certain that you do), I have no
dream of "converting" you (or anyone else, really) to the creationist
position. (I may believe in miracles, but I don't have enough faith for
that one.) I sent it to you as a friendly gesture because I have valued
discussion with you in the past (and I thought the feeling was mutual).
I had thought that in your critique
of creationism you might want some exposure to the "other side". At least
then I could be somewhat assured that your future critique would not be
based on a lop-sided view of the issue. Well I'm glad you got some
amusement out of it anyway.
[--]
I guess the thing I find hardest to take through all this "origins" debate
is bigotry. I am trying to find the truth. I want to listen to argument,
to read (as much as I can) *both* sides of the issue. Having done this
to a certian extent, I believe that there is much truth to scientific
creationism. I really get hurt when people who have no desire to consider
the arguments for creationism, authoritatively hurl one invective after
another at creationists, as if *they* were the truly objective ones. This
is nothing but "true believerism". Every one has to have a devil don't
they? I think that I have foolishly tried to remedy some of this on the
part of people like Lew because I respect them. And because I respect them
I care (somewhat) about what they think of me. In the eyes of our society the
evolutioists are the wise, the educated, the objective ones. Creationists
are the foolish, backward, and close-minded. So, what if you have studied
the issue and feel that creationism has some merit? Well, you either hide
in your pietistic little closet, or speak out and get called a fool. I've
always preferred the latter to the former, but it hurts a lot more.
Some of us "creationist sympathizers" have felt the pressure. The pressure
to appear *totally* objective ( the appearence is possible but not the
reality), the pressure to draw on non-creationist sources heavily because
creationist ones get prima facie dismissal, and some have succumbed to
the pressure of making the creationist movement a religious crusade because
that halls of science reject it and the religious fundamentalists will
only support it if it supports their view of the Bible. All this makes
the learned men of science chuckle at the thought that a creationist
might be interested in truth for truth's sake and we get slammed no matter
what we do. Indeed, Philip Kitcher, in his book "Abusing Science", after
giving what he claims to be a devasting case against creationism (and
wonderful view of how sound neo-Darwinsm is) devotes a whole chapter to
explaining why those who claim to be open minded and objective do not
sacrifice that claim by refusing the least consideration to creationism.
So much time he has saved all of you who might be wondering if it was
worth considering creationism from the source. Set your minds at ease.
It seem that Lew has rendered a similar service to those who would like
to consider ORIGINS RESEARCH or anything Ray Miller says in the future.
I'm sure though that he would not have us dismiss anything that Steven
J. Gould says about creationism just because he is a "dyed-in-the-wool"
evolutionist and anti-creationist. You see, only evolutionists hold
Ockham's razor and it apparently only cuts one way... their way.
Well, this is turning into a sob story and sympathy is a disgusting
substitute for understanding. I don't want sympathy. I'm probably
going to follow John Hobson's lead and remove myself from the debate.
(At least until I get disgusted with my "closet" again.)
BTW, I agree with many of the sentiments that John expressed toward
creationists in his last article. I thought it all needed to be said.
I try not to commit any of those "sins" and dislike them as much as he.
Paul Dubucseifert@ihuxl.UUCP (D.A. Seifert) (02/13/84)
> ... Dr. Baugh is the one currently engaged in raising 3.5 million > dollars to build an ark-shaped creationism museum near Glen Rose. > In my opinion, the ark-museum casts a long, dark shadow over the > scientific legitimacy of Dr. Baugh's paleontology. > > Lew Mammel, Jr. ihnp4!ihuxr!lew Care to explain how building a museum affects one's scientific abilities? If I were to build a house, would that cast a short, light shadow over my technical ability? ( That is, are the size and color of the shadow proportional to the size of the structure built? If so, pity the builders of, say, the astrodome.) Or perhaps it's the word "creationism" that frightens you so? Me thinks thou doth protest too much. Gee, Lew, do *you* have "religaphobia" ? Have you observed a correlation between a person's religious beliefs and their technical ability? I know people who are Christians (various flavors), Jewish, atheist, agnostic, "believes evil spirits live in foxes and flowers ('mums, to be specific)", etc. I have observed no correlation whatsoever between religious beliefs and technical ability. Seems the only complaint you have against Dr. Baugh is that he's trying to build a creationist museum. I see no specific complaints of flaws in his work. If he is so incompetent, then surely you could find something wrong with his work? (As opposed to finding something wrong with the person or with what he does in his spare time) As the saying goes, "put up or shut up." (My apologies if this sounds like a personal attack, I'm really just trying to keep you honest.) -- _____ /_____\ from the flying doghouse of /_______\ Snoopy |___| ____|___|_____ ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert
paul@uiucuxc.UUCP (02/15/84)
#R:ihuxr:-89300:uiucuxc:3900047:000:377
uiucuxc!paul Feb 14 11:47:00 1984
I would rank Dr. Baugh's Creationist Museum right up there with
the Flat Earth Society exhibit in England. It's convincing stuff
if you already believe, utterly laughable otherwise.
Paul Pomes
uucp: {decvax,ihnp4,pur-ee,ucbvax}!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!paul
US Mail: Paul Pomes, University of Illinois
1304 W Springfield, Urbana, IL 61801
Phone: 217-333-6262