dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (A Ray Miller) (05/22/85)
/* Written 10:23 pm May 19, 1985 by miller@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA in uiucdcsb:net.origins */ /* ---------- "belief systems" ---------- */ Mike Ward wrote: > Can it be possible? Do creationists believe what they do just > because it's easier to understand? To which Mike Huybensz responded: > Of course it's possible. But there are other explanations also. > For example, I might explain some cases as a simple cost/benefit > rationale. Someone who has invested alot of capital (emotional or > other) in belief that includes creationism has very little to > gain by rejecting creationism for evolution (unless he/she/it is > a scientist) but will lose consistency of doctrines or agreement > with other believers (which can cost much anguish and even money.) To which Keith Doyle responded: > Or because they're victims of years of indoctrination. You've all got to be kidding! The indoctrination is from the other side. In all of my 12 years of public schools, and then on into college, I *never once* heard anything except evolution. Additionally, all movies and the media only present one side. The implication was clear: we, the Keepers of the Truth, have determined that evolution is a fact beyond reasonable dispute. And I believed it! It was not until I was a *graduate student* that I heard the other side of the story, one which had effectively been censored in the educa- tional establishment. Furthermore, making the switch to creationism can cost a great deal. Professors have been fired, research funding has been cut, papers have been rejected without even being read, and students have been expelled. (See "Creation Magazine," Creation Science Legal Defense Fund, July 1984, pp. 10-11, and also August 1984, p. 9.) Unless you are willing to consider nonmaterialis- tic things in the cost/benefit test, it is clearly better to not rock the boat and remain an evolutionist. Finally, does Mike really have such a high opinion of himself that he thinks his capacity for understanding exceeds that of creationists? Besides the great creationists of the past, who founded most branches of the sciences (some of whom have been listed in previous postings), and besides the thousands of creation scientists today who hold Ph.D.s, what would Mike do with a man like Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith? He has earned not one, not two, but three doctoral degrees in the sciences. Can Mike make such a claim? Is his ego really that inflated? I trust he simply did not state his question clearly; he now has an opportunity to correct that misunderstanding. A. Ray Miller Univ Illinois -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | |
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (05/23/85)
> > Finally, does Mike really have such a high opinion of himself that he > thinks his capacity for understanding exceeds that of creationists? Besides > the great creationists of the past, who founded most branches of the sciences > (some of whom have been listed in previous postings), and besides the thousands > of creation scientists today who hold Ph.D.s, what would Mike do with a man > like Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith? He has earned not one, not two, but three > doctoral degrees in the sciences. Can Mike make such a claim? Is his ego > really that inflated? I trust he simply did not state his question clearly; > he now has an opportunity to correct that misunderstanding. Judging from the postings of the creationists on this net - which is really all the information I have to base an opinion on - my six year old son has a greater capacity for understanding than the creationists. My demented great-aunt has a greater capacity. With almost no exceptions (a nod here to Paul) the creationists who post to this net show absolutely no understanding of logic, of science, or of ethics. Absurd arguments are posted and the facts that refute them are ignored. People are quoted out of context and the facts that correct these are ignored. To claim a greater capacity for understanding than creationists is no great claim. The paragraph copied above is an example of this. Ray cites the greatness of creationists of the past to give evidence of the intelligence of creationists. Using this as a measure, we could make a case for the physics of Aristotle. There were many people who lived in the past who were vastly more intelligent than I, and yet were wrong. I have the benefit of a *whole* lot more information than they did. I have flown in an airplane, so I know that all those who thought that such a thing was impossible were wrong. I have seen photographs of the whole Earth, so I know that it is not flat. I have access to an enormous amount of data that has been assembled by a bunch of people more bright than myself. I have seen how science is able to build theories that are predictive and verifiable. I have seen how theories that are derived independently support each other and lead to results that work. Creationists see all this and are still able to be as wrong as those who lived centuries ago. As for the papered creationists living today, I can't say much. I can do nothing with a man like E. A. Wilder-Smith since I know nothing about him. I do know that there are a great many people with Ph.D's who are utter fools. I do know that the human capacity for self-delusion is immense. And I do know that the power of religion to twist the thinking of a person is virtually unlimited. Dr. Wilder-Smith may very well be an extremely brilliant and talented scientist. But if he believes that creationism is science, then on this subject he is as wrong as Aristotle was.
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (05/24/85)
In article <1128@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (A Ray Miller) writes: > > /* Written 10:23 pm May 19, 1985 by miller@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA in uiucdcsb:net.origins */ > /* ---------- "belief systems" ---------- */ > Mike Ward wrote: > > Can it be possible? Do creationists believe what they do just > > because it's easier to understand? > > To which Mike Huybensz responded: > > Of course it's possible. But there are other explanations also. > > For example, I might explain some cases as a simple cost/benefit > > rationale. Someone who has invested alot of capital (emotional or > > other) in belief that includes creationism has very little to > > gain by rejecting creationism for evolution (unless he/she/it is > > a scientist) but will lose consistency of doctrines or agreement > > with other believers (which can cost much anguish and even money.) > > Furthermore, making the switch to creationism can cost a great deal. > Professors have been fired, research funding has been cut, papers have been > rejected without even being read, and students have been expelled. > Unless you are willing to consider nonmaterialistic things in the > cost/benefit test, it is clearly better to not rock the boat and remain > an evolutionist. Poo. Only if you are one of the few people who are likely to be in the situations you describe. Not everybody is a creationist professor of biology. Few students let what they learn in class affect their lives. An absurd percentage of Americans believes in astrology, yet how many let that affect their spouting back astronomy in school? The fact is, there are very few people to whom evolution has any value (any more than geocentrism, for example), so it costs little or nothing for the average creationist to reject evolution. Walk into a creationist congregation, and ask them who among them would benefit materially if they changed their belief to evolution. I say very few would. > Finally, does Mike really have such a high opinion of himself that he > thinks his capacity for understanding exceeds that of creationists? Besides > the great creationists of the past, who founded most branches of the sciences > (some of whom have been listed in previous postings), and besides the 1000's > of creation scientists today who hold Ph.D.s, what would Mike do with a man > like Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith? He has earned not one, not two, but three > doctoral degrees in the sciences. Can Mike make such a claim? Is his ego > really that inflated? I trust he simply did not state his question clearly; > he now has an opportunity to correct that misunderstanding. Does Ray really have such a high opinion of himself that he thinks his capacity for understanding exceeds that of evolutionary biologists? Would Ray dare oppose the opinion of Nobel prize winner Shockly that Blacks are inferior? Would Ray rate all those people above Jesus because Jesus didn't even have a high school diploma? The fact is that Ray is appealing to invalid authority in several ways. First, a Ph.D. is not a guarantee of infallibility. Nor is a lack of any specific degree a guarantee of inferiority. And finally, even experts in their own fields frequently have wild opinions about some aspect of their own field, that most other experts disagree with. The best recourse for individuals is to evaluate the arguments and the evidence. I've spent alot of effort doing so. If you don't like my conclusions, Ray, you're welcome to argue against them. But you might want to desist from ad-hominem attacks like the one above. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh