hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (05/28/85)
_____________________________________________________________________________ Though this is directly at Paul Dubois because of some of the specific items, most creationists are guilty of the general points. Paul, in you one of your more recent posts you pointed out something which summarizes in some ways a significant portion of what you contribute. Here is the segment: > From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) > Subject: Dead Parents > > The point I was originally trying to make (and still hold to) is that > the implication was made that creationists were responsible for this > idea. There are two things to consider: the idea's origin, and the > way in which it is used. The latter is separate and I will comment on > it below. Regarding the origin of the idea, the fact is that whether > it is right or wrong, it was originally a concept engendered by > evolutionary theory and promulgated by evolutionary theorists. This is > simply a fact. Evolutionists who act (not all do) as though this is a > ridiculous idea dreamed up by creationists should be disabused of the > notion. The source of the concept is not from that quarter. There is nothing wrong with raising this point. However, you seem to have taken it too far. The thrust of the discussion on net.origins is concerned with the scientific validity of creationism. So far, you have been setting an example which I hope everyone will follow. You have made a lot of intelligent contributions. However, I have noticed that the "other" type of contributions which you make are criticisms of things having little, if any, relevance to the topic at hand. In the segment that I quoted above. You directly pointed out that you are criticizing the origin of the idea and the usage of the idea. As I have already said, that is fine in a discussion. However, your point is not relevant to the discussion of the scientific validity of creationism. Therefore, it should not have been taken this far. Also, I have not yet seen any article from you which dealt with support for creationism; most of what I have read from you consist of attempts at taking small bites out an evolutionary theory or concept. Sometimes, such as in this quote, you completely ignore the fact that what you are criticizing is already rejected. In fact, you are not even critical of the idea. You are only critical of someone else mistakenly thinking that it was made up by creationists. That has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. The contraversy itself is sparked by creationists trying to stick their own views into scientific textbooks forcefully. No one forcefully stuck the evolution parts into textbooks. In simple language, scientists felt that way and the textbooks dealing with science wanted to reflect that. Why should some rejected old theory (which was originally accepted as undisputable fact) be injected into high school science textbooks against the general opinion of scientists? The cries of "secular humanism!" "communist plot!" and the like are the early answers. Now creationists have tried a different tactic. They are trying to get the public to believe that they are scientific. This is where net.origins comes in. Is this theory of creationism valid in a scientific context? Perhaps the biggest attempt I have seen at proving creationism is the post by Ron K. (rck). It is a reasonable attempt, but it fails miserably. The basic foundation of the argument rests upon the disproof of evolution. Again, I do not see how this is relevant, but somebody obviously does. The disproof of evolution is only that. Even if evolution is disproven somehow, it does not follow that creationism is proven. It has been pointed out many times that biological history is not necessarily a two-sided issue. Duane Gish summarized this poor assumption very well: "We object to the idea that we are the random products of chance that-- as evolutionists maintain-- there is no God, that there is no one to whom we are responsible. We are nothing more than a mechanistic product of a mindless universe. I believe this is wrong. I believe the scientific evidence is clearly in contradiction to that." The implication here is that the whole issue is two-sided; God or no God, created beings or random products, responsibility or anarchy, designed universe or mindless universe. In fact, the entire quote is anti-evolution rather than pro-creation. I have a feeling most creationists will continue to make the mistake of using disproof of evolution as proof of creationism. I still hope that at least a handful will open their eyes and see the faulty logic. ______________________________________________________________________________ Live long and prosper. Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }