[net.origins] Why I'm an Evolutionist to Jake O'sHonesty and "host"

rst@tardis.UUCP (Robert Thau) (03/26/85)

> Greetings to me fellow readahs of net.oorigins.  Moy name is Jake
> O'sHonesty and Oy wooed loik to mike a contribution to this 'ere
> discussion between the Evolutionknights and Creationknights.

Welcome aboard ...

> What Oy 'ave to sigh is this: when Oy look aroun' me in this 'ere
> world, it DOES NAWT *look* loik it's an awkcident.  On the contr'ry, it
> LOOKS loik it 'as bean CREATED.  This is me aown pers'nl intellectshool
> and scientific conclusion.  Oy am compelled to sigh this as a result of
> me aown ability to mike awbservations, to think lawgic'ly, and to
> naotice cause and effect relationships.  Now to keep this simple, Oy'll
> sigh it agane: things *look* as if they've bean created; particularly
> the creatures--the plonts, onimals, and people.  Thus, Oy sigh this is
> Fundament'l evidence in favor of Creation.

Jake here is arguing that the world shows too much order to be the result
of random events and that there must therefore have been a creator.  However,
the argument stops there.  In particular, there is nothing anywhere in this
argument which can show that the creator might not simply have chose evolution
as the means towards his/her/its chosen end.  

Besides, "creationism" is generally taken to mean far more than the existence
of a creator; the ICR statement includes such things as a belief in the
historical reality of the Noachian flood, which Jake's teleological argument
does nothing to support.

There's another problem, which is brought out best in ...

> So what do you sigh, me Evolutionknight friends?  If Oy stond you in
> front of a spice shutt'le, and sigh, "'ow does it LOOK loik it got
> 'ere, by notural process-eaze or intelligent creativity?", what will
> you sigh?  And if Oy point to an 'uman body (or the 'ole world of
> creatures) and sigh, "'ow does it LOOK loik it got 'ere?", con you
> 'onestly sigh the first LOOKS loik it was created boy intelligence, but
> the second LOOKS loik it's an awkcident?  And con you 'onestly revile a
> Creationknight who wooed sigh, "At least it LOOKS loik it's bean
> created"?

Speaking for myself only here, I can't let how things look at one quick glance
run roughshod over my beliefs.  After all, the earth LOOKS flat.  In the case
of the brain and the world of creatures, I've seen in my life a fair number
of creatures, ranging from our admittedly intricate selves to membrane-bound
bubbles only visible under powerful microscopes.  I could even place 'em (if
I needed to) in a rough, speculative continuum of "things like this might have
arisen from things like that" which goes from the bacteria which might have
come from lifeless bubbles to us, who might have had a common ancestor with
chimps.  On the basis of this, the fossil record, the genetics I know, and
so forth, I believe in evolution.  I suppose if G-d starts flaming from
Mount Sinai tomorrow I'll have to change my mind.

There's a lot of evidence here which goes to bolster evolution; in times when
that evidence was unavailable, rational people could rightly consider evolution
crazy.  This goes to a deeper point:  if you want to figure out the truth about
anything, you can't be content with examining how it looks.  You've got to
go in with note pads, pickaxes, test tubes and whatever else you've got and
try and FIGURE OUT how it works; and once you've done that, you'd better be
ready for someone to come along with an observation which makes you chuck
the whole thing.  (Evolutionists on this net, take note!)  Above all, you
can't go in thinking that you know what's going on before you start, which is
what creationists do by accepting tenets of belief before they even start
looking at the real world.

Now that that's over with:  Foist and O'sHonesty [pen name or not, I don't
care] have done a great deal to dispel the pedantry which dominates this
dismal newsgroup.  (And here am I, bringing it back down again.  Ken Arndt,
where are you now that we need you?). Thanks much, guys.  I appreciate it.

Robert Thau
rst@tardis.ARPA

ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (03/26/85)

> Welcome aboard ...
> 
> > What Oy 'ave to sigh is this: when Oy look aroun' me in this 'ere
> > world, it DOES NAWT *look* loik it's an awkcident.  On the contr'ry, it
> > LOOKS loik it 'as bean CREATED.  This is me aown pers'nl intellectshool
> > and scientific conclusion.  Oy am compelled to sigh this as a result of
> > me aown ability to mike awbservations, to think lawgic'ly, and to
> > naotice cause and effect relationships.  Now to keep this simple, Oy'll
> > sigh it agane: things *look* as if they've bean created; particularly
> > the creatures--the plonts, onimals, and people.  Thus, Oy sigh this is
> > Fundament'l evidence in favor of Creation.

If the choice were between randomness and Creation, it would be clear to
me also that creationism is correct.  Since that's not the choice (not even
close) "scientific" creationism looks like crap to me.  (Of course that's
just "me aown pers'nl conclusion". :-)). 

"Don't argue with a fool.      Ethan Vishniac
 Borrow his money."            {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan

*Anyone who wants to claim these opinions is welcome to them.*