dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/17/85)
This is the second of four articles posted for Ray Miller. ---- /* Written 9:06 pm Mar 14, 1985 by miller@uiucdcsb in uiucdcsb:net.origins */ /* ---------- "Policy Statements, et al" ---------- */ This topic has come up before, but I'll use Bill's note as a springboard for a response: >It has been pointed out by several people that it is difficult to determine >exactly what the Creationists on this net actually believe. These statements, of course, are complete smokescreens put out by the evolu- tionists. Why do I say this? Four reasons: 1) Although it may be true that not *all* net creationists have stated exactly where they stand on minor subtopics such as progressive/special, old/young earth, etc. it also remains true that NO net evolutionist, so far as I can recall, has stated his particular position on evolutionary disagreements, e.g., gradualism/PE, Leakey/Johanson's view of Australopithecus, etc. No net creationist has accused a net evolutionist of being ambiguous, deceit- ful, etc. on this point, all of which have been charged to us in the past. What is clearly happening on both sides is that there is simply so much ma- terial to cover at the top, that few of us have spend much time on the finer points. For evolutionists to complain on this point is double standards. 2) Since creationists, like evolutionists, are diverse, it stands to reason that we won't always agree on all subpoints. To then demand of us some perfect unified statement is obviously absurd. 3) Since net.origins was created, I have seen 154 creationist articles posted or received (by uiucdcsb). Anyone who hasn't gotten a pretty good idea of at least the major points in that time is simply not reading. More likely, it's simply easier to whimper "Golly, I don't understand" than to deal with the issues presented by the creationists. 4) Finally, I, for one, have posted a great deal of articles on the subject. (Over 3000 lines, or about 150 pages.) Most significantly, I have posted four (of the coming five) SOR pamphlets to the net. Though brief by intent, those pamphlets have given a sufficient definition of special creation. I have seen nothing by the evolutionists comparable in scope of their own mo- del. These pamphlets tell you quite a bit of what I believe at least. For evolutionists to claim ignorance of where I stand on the issue (including most of the subtopics) is silly. Having said all that, I must say I don't expect this charge to go away. I've learned on the net that a) most people motivated enough to post articles already have their minds made up, no matter what evidence is presented, and b) we're always getting new readers on the net who missed earlier discussions. Turning to another topic, Bill posts the statment CRS members (but not ICR employees) must sign. (He fails to mention that CRS members must also hold a M.S. or Ph.D. in a science field.) I'd like to make a few points on this. First, CRS is both a religious and a scientific organization. It pretends to be nothing else. Other groups, such as SOR, deal with the subject totally from a scientific viewpoint. Still other groups (mostly church type organizations) approach the topic only from a religious angle. There is nothing wrong with this; I can easily cite a range of parallel organizations on the other side, e.g. the Hindus (religious), the American Scientific Association (both), and the Committee on Correspondence (scientific). The point is that all of these groups operate in their own sphere of influence quite nicely, and one should be very careful in the conclusions drawn. Should I claim that because the ASA exists and is partially religious (theistic evolution) that we should not teach *evolution* in the public schools? Of course not. On to my final, but related topic. Poor Karen made the "mistake" of saying she agrees with CRS's membership statement. Horrors!! Lew immediately jumps all over her, claiming she only has a "one bit intellect". Now worse charges have been thrown at the net creationists in the past. I saved some of my favorite ones. They are: (we were really called this, folks) officers of the inquisition a social holocaust metaphysical totalitarianism Big Brother Nazis I'm waiting for someone to blame sunburn on us. Now I have 2 comments to make on such name calling, and then I'll stop for this week. 1) Such tactics really demonstrate the poverty of the evolutionists' position. It would be far better to discuss the evidence for evolution than to resort to silly name calling. Since there is none, however, pure emotionalism is employed as a defensive measure. 2) I don't think anything at all can be accomplished once someone has reached such a state. People stop arguing with their minds and instead argue from their hearts. Further discussion is fruitless. THEREFORE, I can't speak for other creationists on the net, but from now on I intend to *not respond* to anyone at the first sign of name calling or excessive emotion/flame/mud. A. Ray Miller Univ Illinois /* End of text from uiucdcsb:net.origins */
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (04/24/85)
In article <908@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > >These statements, of course, are complete smokescreens put out by the evolu- >tionists. Why do I say this? Four reasons: >1) Although it may be true that not *all* net creationists have stated exactly > where they stand on minor subtopics such as progressive/special, old/young > earth, etc. it also remains true that NO net evolutionist, so far as I can > recall, has stated his particular position on evolutionary disagreements, > e.g., gradualism/PE, Leakey/Johanson's view of Australopithecus, etc. I have not said anything about these questions because I have never felt them to be relevent to what I was saying. However to clear the air a little here are my answers. As far as the PE/gradualism issu is concerned, I stand somewhere in the middle. I feel that the more extreme claims of the die-hard Punctuated Equilibrium school are overgeneralizations or poorly supported by data, however I also feel there is much evidence for highly variable rates of change and *relative* stability in established species. This moderated PE stand is similar to that of Ernst Mayr or Dr Stebbins or Dr Hickey. I am generally skeptical of Dr Leakey's work, since he seems to have an axe to grind, and his objectivity is therefor suspect. I probably do not entirely agree with Dr Johanson either. In fact in general I try to evaluate the evidence myself and draw my own conclusions. By the way, I feel the evidence for "warm-blooded" dinosaurs is quite convincing. >2) Since creationists, like evolutionists, are diverse, it stands to reason > that we won't always agree on all subpoints. To then demand of us some > perfect unified statement is obviously absurd. I agree here, I hope I have never been at fault here. >A. Ray Miller >Univ Illinois >/* End of text from uiucdcsb:net.origins */ -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen