hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (03/26/85)
___________________________________________________________________________ Dear Mr. DuBois, > > > > And please answer this: Why do the NSF and other science organiza- > > > > tions reject creationism?! Is it because they are not Christians?! > > > > > > It is not because they do not like the science; it is because they want > > > to avoid the inevitable conclusion. Even in the last century, evolution > > > was gaining acceptance, not because of scientific validity, but because > > > "it finally freed us from accountability [to a Creator]." They realize > > > full well that the only real alternative to evolution is creation, and > > > thus they even suppress evidence which would make evolution look like > > > Swiss Cheese. (Like when an Ivy League professor scissored out Ron > > > Brady's article from the library copy of December 1979 _Systematic > > > Zoology_ so students wouldn't read it.) > > > > Please give me evidence of this incident. Also, give me evidence of > > your claim that evolution was gaining acceptance (I assume that you > > are talking about the scientific community; other acceptances are > > irrelevant.) was because "it finally freed us from accountability > > [to a Creator]." > > The Brady incident is discussed in "Darwinism: A Time for Funerals. > An Interview with Norman MacBeth." Towards, Spring 1982. I will give > the relevant part, along with a bit of the article preceding it, to > set the context. > > MacBeth discussing population genetics: > > MacBeth: We took it to a man at Ramapo College who was teaching > population genetics. He said, "I despise this whole subject and agree > that it's worth nothing." I took it to three or four men at the > American Museum of Natural History. They said, "Well, I never thought > of this," and gulped a little at it's being stated bluntly that > population genetics did nothing, but they said that on the whole they > think it's right and said that they never did like the subject anyway. > So, I feel that my intuitions in 1971 were correct, but as for anybody > actually forming a commission and laying down an authoritative ruling > that the mathematicians aren't doing a thing for us, they don't do that > sort of thing. They always fumble along from day to day and sort of > feel the consensus of the community. I think that consensus is pretty > strong that mathematics isn't doing what was hoped, but they have not > yet reached a point where they are willing to step forward and tell all > those mathematicians that they don't like them any more. They haven't > any respect for them. The idea has been strong for a long time that if > something isn't mathematical it isn't science, so they don't quite dare > to talk back to these men who have been tossing the equations round so > freely. At this point I should add also that I took this article to > another professor in the biology depratment at Ramap College and asked > her opinion of it. She came back after several days and said, "I agree > entirely that population genetics is worthless stuff, but you can't > publish this. If you and Eddie publish something like this the > Creationists would get hold of it and throw it in our faces and we > can't have that." So here we have another example, a living example, > of the basic theme in my book - that they are not revealing all the > dirt under the rug in their approach to the public. There is a feeling > that they ought to keep back the worst so that their public reputation > would not suffer and the Creationists wouldn't get any ammunition. > > Towards: This fear of giving the creationists ammunition seems very > real. > > MacBeth: Well, let me tell you the most horrible anecdote of them all. > A few minutes ago I mentioned Ron Brady's article on natural selection > in "Systematic Zoology." I will not name the man or the college in > this case but it was an Ivy League college and a respectable man. One > of the assistant professors of biology read Ron Brady's article and > showed it to a couple of his colleagues, and they all agreed this was > very interesting stuff. They put it on the reading list for biology > courses. Then they had to arrange for a number of copies to be struck > off for students to read. One student couldn't wait for the copies > because he had other business and had to read it instantly. So they > told him to go on down to the library, get out "Systematic Zoology" for > December of '79, and read it right there. He came back in half an hour > and said, "I got out the December issue but the article isn't there, > it's been scissored out." Next day, the assistant professor of biology > went into the office of the head of the department on some other > business and on the head's table he saw the missing pages. He went out > and got his two colleagues and they marched in together and asked for > an explanation. The head of the department said, "well, of course I > don't believe in censorship in any form, but I just couldn't bear the > idea of my students reading that article." Excuse me but did I not make myself clear in previous articles that one bad apple does not account for the whole population? I am sure that many others have already made this point clear, although crea- tionists love to pick out exceptions (which turn out to be invalid anyway) rather than the general trends. (see previous articles for examples) The article discussed in the incident above does not make swiss cheese out of evolution. Instead, the fears of the said individuals make their integrity look like swiss cheese. I suggest that you get some lessons on distinguishing between personal insecurity and sci- entific flaws. The fools described in the segment given above does show significant signs of ignorance (which is understandable if the time is appropriately early). They are also quite aware of the fact that creationists jump at anything they can get their hands on to twist into apparent support for their worthless cause; this I will give them credit for. As for the censoring Ivy professor, I hope he is promoted to some toilet-cleaning position in his department though he does not deserve even that much. This does not say much for the rest of the scientific community. Remember--one bad apple is not justification for burning the orchard. And where is the response to my second request? > Of course. Not in any form. Uh, what does this mean? If this is the response to my second re- quest, please clarify, as I cannot make any sense of this. But you have not answered my original questions ... why do scientific organizations reject creationism? why aren't creationist material pub- lished in scientific journals? Give me a real reason this time! Nothing too silly like "they no longer have to be accountable to God". No ridiculous guesses like "they want to avoid the inevitable conclusion". You will have to show that a majority of the scientists actually think the way you claim they think before you can be anywhere near correct; I really doubt that you can come close. ___________________________________________________________________________ Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }