arndt@lymph.DEC (04/26/85)
Padraig Houlahan says it's 'pathetic' to point out the error of past evolutionary arguments (he references mention of embryo development as an argument for evolution is no longer used and to point that out is to en effect to beat a dead horse) since no one believes them any longer. But this is merely the same kind of argument religious people us to point out to non believers when they, the non believers hold up silly notions of what the believers really believe! Such as the utterly stupid idea that God has to be explained - who/what caused God? Many uninformed believers in evolution, just like the uniformed unbelievers in God, still hold to outmoded or bogus ideas to bolster their convictions. WHAT MANY EVOLUTIONISTS ON THIS NET SEEM TO FAIL TO REALIZE IS THE THE 'ENVIRONMENT' IN WHICH THE 'DEBATE' ABOUT EVOLUTION IS TAKING PLACE IN OUR SOCIETY TODAY IS ONE IN WHICH EVOLUTION IS SEEN TO HAVE CARRIED THE DAY, AND SO IT IS RIGHT, AS A TECHNIQUE, TO CRITICISE EVOLUTION POINT BY POINT IN MAKING A CASE FOR CREATIONISM. As has been pointed out here several times, while the exhalted presenses on the net may not believe any longer in the development of the embryo as a argument for evolution it is still an 'evidence' with much of the 'great unwashed' public school herd. Still in some textbooks used, etc. Perhaps the most that can be said against mentioning the idea on the net is that most HERE no longer use it. But pathetic? . . . no. Regards, Ken Arndt
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (04/27/85)
> > Padraig Houlahan says it's 'pathetic' to point out the error of past > evolutionary arguments (he references mention of embryo development as > an argument for evolution is no longer used and to point that out is > to en effect to beat a dead horse) since no one believes them any longer. This point has already been responded to. I have said that one cannot attack evolution by attacking a discarded evolutionary argument. The point was that it was the one makeing the attack who stated that the embryo argument was no longer valid. In which case why bother? This is not saying whether or not the arguement is correct or not, a topic I leave to someone who knows more about the details than I do. > But this is merely the same kind of argument religious people us to point > out to non believers when they, the non believers hold up silly notions > of what the believers really believe! Such as the utterly stupid idea > that God has to be explained - who/what caused God? Perhaps you could tell us why the "first explainer" should not be explained? If your god doesn't have to be explained, then neither does my cosmos have to be explained by a god. Not so stupid after all. "huh". > Many uninformed believers in evolution, just like the uniformed unbelievers > in God, still hold to outmoded or bogus ideas to bolster their convictions. That may very well be true, since science evolves :-) and one needs to continually beef up one the current crop of ideas. Perhaps you would enlighten us on net.religion as to what the "modern proofs" for the existence of god are. I would be interested in discussing them with you, if you wish. Anyway, a bad arguing style is bad, no matter who uses it. It doesn't justify it by trying to find instances where others use it. > WHAT MANY EVOLUTIONISTS ON THIS NET SEEM TO FAIL TO REALIZE IS THE THE > 'ENVIRONMENT' IN WHICH THE 'DEBATE' ABOUT EVOLUTION IS TAKING PLACE IN OUR > SOCIETY TODAY IS ONE IN WHICH EVOLUTION IS SEEN TO HAVE CARRIED THE DAY, > AND SO IT IS RIGHT, AS A TECHNIQUE, TO CRITICISE EVOLUTION POINT BY POINT > IN MAKING A CASE FOR CREATIONISM. It is always correct to challange currently held ideas and theories, and in this respect creationists have done a lot of good. However, just because a theory is dominant one does not prove another by attacking it. To do so is not scientific proof for the other. > As has been pointed out here several times, while the exhalted presenses > on the net may not believe any longer in the development of the embryo > as a argument for evolution it is still an 'evidence' with much of the > 'great unwashed' public school herd. Still in some textbooks used, etc. I, to repeat myself, never claimed that the argument was correct, or incorrect. This point is irrelevant. > Perhaps the most that can be said against mentioning the idea on the net > is that most HERE no longer use it. But pathetic? . . . no. The issue was not whether or not the arguement was used, but whether it is useful to attack a discarded argument. The debating style was, and still is pathetic. You seem to have understood this initially, judging by your lead paragraph. However you seem to have strayed a little since then. > Regards, > Ken Arndt Padraig Houlahan.
long@oliveb.UUCP (A Panther Modern) (04/28/85)
In article <1852@decwrl.UUCP> arndt@lymph.DEC writes: | | Padraig Houlahan says it's 'pathetic' to point out the error of past | evolutionary arguments (he references mention of embryo development as | an argument for evolution is no longer used and to point that out is | to en effect to beat a dead horse) since no one believes them any longer. | | But this is merely the same kind of argument religious people us to point | out to non believers when they, the non believers hold up silly notions | of what the believers really believe! Such as the utterly stupid idea | that God has to be explained - who/what caused God? | Ken, you have made an error in equivocation here. The two cases are not the same. In the first case, the person who is attacking old arguments is attacking an argument that neither side holds as true any longer (beating a dead horse). In the second case, the person who asks for any ghod to be ex- plained is asking a valid question to which the answer forms a major part of the religion to be evaluated* (inspecting a live horse). * in most religious contexts, I guess that the answer "that is not a question for one of our faith to ask" would be a good one. | Many uninformed believers in evolution, just like the uniformed unbelievers | in God, still hold to outmoded or bogus ideas to bolster their convictions. These folk will always be about. Their affiliation with any side of an ar- gument does not mean anything. | ... SO IT IS RIGHT, AS A TECHNIQUE, TO CRITICISE EVOLUTION POINT BY POINT | IN MAKING A CASE FOR CREATIONISM. That is an either/or fallacy: If the use of science to explain and pre- dict the development of systems is impossible, then the only alternative is your creator created everything in the way that you say that "he" said "he" did. In making a case for your brand of creationism, you should build a group of facts that we can agree with. In the case of a "scientific" creationism, you would have to show the data from which you concluded creation, how well your interpretation of that data fits, and how well your interpretation can be used to predict future events. If it accomplishes all of these better than the best theory of evolution, then you have made your case for creationism in the correct manner. | As has been pointed out here several times, while the exhalted presenses | on the net may not believe any longer in the development of the embryo | as a argument for evolution it is still an 'evidence' with much of the | 'great unwashed' public school herd. Still in some textbooks used, etc. | Perhaps the most that can be said against mentioning the idea on the net | is that most HERE no longer use it. But pathetic? . . . no. Pathetic? . . . yes. I'd consider anyone beating dead horses either pa- thetic or a necroequisadist. Just because a majority of people are carrying about dead horses does not mean that live horses do not exist, and that the horse farm is not doing quite well. Just because the release of a program (or theory) that most people use has a few bugs and style problems does not mean that the current release of the program (or theory) has not been mostly fixed, nor that the whole concept of the program (or theory) is invalid. Dave Long -- gnoL evaD Beware of {msoft,allegra,gsgvax,fortune,hplabs,idi,ios, Black ICE nwuxd,ihnp4,tolrnt,tty3b,vlsvax1,zehntel}!oliveb!long
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (04/29/85)
> Padraig Houlahan says it's 'pathetic' to point out the error of past > evolutionary arguments (he references mention of embryo development as > an argument for evolution is no longer used and to point that out is > to en effect to beat a dead horse) since no one believes them any longer. > > But this is merely the same kind of argument religious people us to point > out to non believers when they, the non believers hold up silly notions > of what the believers really believe! That kind of arguement is quite valid, and religious people are allowed to use it too, as far as I'm concerned. > Such as the utterly stupid idea > that God has to be explained - who/what caused God? Just how is this an example of an outdated religious belief which nonbelievers hold up to ridicule? <answer: it's not.> > > Many uninformed believers in evolution, just like the uniformed unbelievers > in God, still hold to outmoded or bogus ideas to bolster their convictions. > WHAT MANY EVOLUTIONISTS ON THIS NET SEEM TO FAIL TO REALIZE IS THE THE > 'ENVIRONMENT' IN WHICH THE 'DEBATE' ABOUT EVOLUTION IS TAKING PLACE IN OUR > SOCIETY TODAY IS ONE IN WHICH EVOLUTION IS SEEN TO HAVE CARRIED THE DAY, > AND SO IT IS RIGHT, AS A TECHNIQUE, TO CRITICISE EVOLUTION POINT BY POINT > IN MAKING A CASE FOR CREATIONISM. Wow! It's in capital letters, so it must be TRUE! Notice that if it were true, it would be valid for people to criticize modern physics since newtonian mechanics doesn't work for v->c. Physicists would say: 'But we've got a new theory that takes care of that!'. And aristotelians could then make *exactly* the same arguement that Arndt just has. Nuff said. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "This here's a story 'bout Minnie the Moocher. She was a low-down hoo-oochy koocher. She was the roughest, meanest frail. But Minnie had a heart as big as a whale." - idunno (mail me if you do!)
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (04/29/85)
[..............] >WHAT MANY EVOLUTIONISTS ON THIS NET SEEM TO FAIL TO REALIZE IS THE THE >'ENVIRONMENT' IN WHICH THE 'DEBATE' ABOUT EVOLUTION IS TAKING PLACE IN OUR >SOCIETY TODAY IS ONE IN WHICH EVOLUTION IS SEEN TO HAVE CARRIED THE DAY, >AND SO IT IS RIGHT, AS A TECHNIQUE, TO CRITICISE EVOLUTION POINT BY POINT >IN MAKING A CASE FOR CREATIONISM. >As has been pointed out here several times, while the exhalted presenses >on the net may not believe any longer in the development of the embryo >as a argument for evolution it is still an 'evidence' with much of the >'great unwashed' public school herd. Still in some textbooks used, etc. >Perhaps the most that can be said against mentioning the idea on the net >is that most HERE no longer use it. But pathetic? . . . no. >Regards, >Ken Arndt What many creationists on this net seem to fail to realize is that the 'environment' in which the 'debate' about evolution SHOULD be taking place is in the scientific community, where it belongs. Public school is not the proper place to 'filibuster' for scientific ideas. However, many creationists realize that politics is the only possible hope they have for getting their way (as the scientists aren't having any). The day we decide what science is on the basis of public opinion is the day science dies. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd