lazarus@ucbvax.ARPA (Andy Lazarus) (10/16/85)
In article <420@imsvax.UUCP>, ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: (> is from net.origins) [ > = Ted, quoting William Rusher writing in the Moon-financed Washington Times newspaper. Please interpret this as a criticism of Mr. Rusher, and not Ted, as I can't warrant he agrees with all of it.] > > As anybody who presumes to write critically of a scientific dogma [evolution, and particularly archaeopteryx as evidence thereof] > rapidly > discovers, such lese majeste triggers a flurry of correspondence whose tone is > anything but clinical. With an arrogance and certitude reminiscent of the > Spanish inquisition, the miscreant is peremptorily ordered to abandon his > ignorant doubts, and get back in line. The vigor and sheer nastiness of the > assault gives rise to the suspicion that one is in the presence of a hidden > agenda - most likely that of secular humanism (a polite term for atheism). Over on net.politics, we have been treated to analysis (of a sort) by one Don Black, a subscriber to the theory that the Holocaust of European Jewry did not in fact take place. Mr Black has drawn a "flurry of correspondence", most of it suggesting that he is insane, that his employer should be boycotted, etc. By Mr. Rusher's idiotic pseudo-reasoning, the violent outcry against Mr Black is evidence that Mr. Black's drivel has some merit -- and that his detractors have some "hidden agenda" (Mr. Black labels it the Int'l Zionist conspiracy.). A similar conclusion would hold for doctors who protest vigorously against quack medicine. Their hidden agenda is part of the alleged medical profits conspiracy. (Edith Efron, another right-winger, has a recent book making just this argument.) Why exactly does Mr. Rusher have such suspicion of people who argue their convictions. It is hardly surprising that scientists protest against a scientific pseudo-system (creationism) which reduces their work to consultation of the Christian Scriptures. The paragraph following this excerpt above, which interested readers may find on their own, contains a serious error. My understanding is that just because there were (presumably) intermediate forms is *no* reason that these forms should be replete in the fossil record. Don't many evolutionists hold just the contrary, that these intermediate forms disappeared quickly? For the benefit of the less politically inclined, Wm. Rusher is a long time editor of Wm. F. Buckley's journal _National Review_. Isn't it curious to see someone who believes in only *SOCIAL* Darwinism? andy lazarus