hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (03/26/85)
______________________________________________________________________ Dear Mr. Dubois, > > Why are you excusing your vagueness/ambiguity by saying that > > evolutionists do it too? Is this valid? Really, Mr. Dubois! > > I'm not excusing myself, I'm saying that while such might be true for > me, it is also true of you. The inference that I'm making an excuse > is incorrect. You are incorrect in believing (wishful thinking perhaps) that scientists are vague about evolution. (It is your responsibility to prove otherwise.) Since you are not making an excuse, as you indicated above, you have simply confessed your guilt. Let's see you correct it in a future post so we can have a reasonable dis- cussion. > > You also have missed the point of scientists' request that > > creationists specifically define their position. Just signing > > the CRS declaration does not provide that at all. The CRS > > statements are totally unscientific. (see my next article) > > I stated that I would comment on the question of whether I would sign > the statement. I answered the question. The question was not > whether the statement was scientific, so I didn't answer it. Missing > the point? Physician, heal thyself. I am not a physican, fool! If you think this statement, taking your last comment literally, is missing the point, you are absolutely cor- rect. Now let's see you respond to the basic point behind the ques- tions rather than just blindly answering questions. > > When we demand your position, we are only asking for your > > theory, in specifics, so that we may evaluate the scientificness > > that you claim to reside in your position. (We ARE talking > > about science, aren't we?!) Science cannot accept something > > until it is fully evaluated for its scientific content and > > usefulness. Thus far, the very little specifics that are > > presented by creationists do not qualify as science. If you > > must be so persistent in supporting your position as science, > > then you had better substantiate it. > > I notice, while you're foaming at the mouth from the effort required > to make your rhetoric as imflammatory as possible, that you have said > only WHAT you believe, and absolutely nothing about HOW it happened. > Which is exactly what I pointed out. So calm down a little. You've > got some worthwhile things to say (e.g., your comments on "the God > question"), but you make them so difficult to find by packaging them > in napalm. What's the purpose of this paragraph? Avoiding the question? Surely you are reputed to be better than that! "napalm"?! Really now! > > Since you insist on turning the tables around to confuse the > > issue, I will remind you that science has already accepted > > evolution, and it is certainly not in question by scientists. > > So what? Really. So what? What kind of argument is that? > Next you'll be saying that science is static, and perpetuated by > transmission of the orthodoxy. Perhaps you would like to write in more understandable terms what you have unsuccessfully tried to convey here?! > In addition, I didn't "turn the tables" to confuse the issue. I did > it to point out that your own charges of unclarity apply to yourself > and others who share the evolutionary viewpoint. Address yourself to > that. ONE: We are sick of "you do it, too, so there!" excuses. Even if your opponent is quilty of the same charge, you are not granted forgiveness. Incidentally, your opponent is not, which leaves you alone. TWO: We are NOT concerned with how creationism compares with evolution. We are trying to make some understanding of creationism as a science, if it qualifies. So far, I have yet to see it qualify. If creationists want scientific recognition, they had better clear up what they are try- ing to push. (Further comments below.) > > Whatever hotly debated theories concerning mechanisms/rates > > are also within the framework of science. Creationism, on > > the other hand has yet to be accepted by science at all! > > Well, from the glee with which some evolutionary writers (J. Huxley, for > example) heralded the "liberation" of science from its religious > framework, one would get the idea that science was at one time done > from within that framework. And what did that framework have to say > about creation? It was accepted. Perhaps you would like to finish your paragraph, which would read something to this effect: "But since science is liberated from its religious framework, it no longer blindly accepts that which the Pope forces it to declare in public confession, and it now freely searches out knowledge without the censorship and prejudices of the past." Once again, don't take this literally. Rather, see the point I am trying to make behind it. > > We still find it ridiculous and unfounded in science. You can > > sidetrack and blab about fairness or intolerance or whatever, > > but that won't help creationism become scientific. > > Of course it won't. That's why I didn't talk about fairness or > intolerance. Read things before you reply to them. But what is the "you do it too" argument you raise above but plain and simple fairness! By the way, science is not fair. > > Creationism is still being considered as a whole. Therefore, > > it must have some unifying specifics to start with. No one > > has come up with that yet. What are you waiting for? This is > > why some people, including myself, have speculated that you > > are simply leaving it vague, so that in a political arena, > > creationism becomes difficult to challenge. > > Then you may demonstrate my involvement in political affairs. > Otherwise you're just, as you say, speculating, and that's all. Unrelated comments, which I will ignore. > Your argument also contains within itself the seeds of its own > destruction. Leaving creationism vague doesn't make it difficult to > challenge. You demonstrate that, by asserting the vagueness, and > attacking creationism on that ground. Your refute yourself! Cute. If you want technicallities, you got it: You will note, in your infinite wisdom, that I am attacking the proponents of crea- tionism for their vagueness. I will attack creationism in its de- tail, if it becomes clear enough to do so. You will also note that most literatures against creationism are attacking its individual specifics that have been brought up, not its overall ideas. (As a sidetrack, most of these specifics are attacks on evolution, not support for creationism.) > > Despite the praises given by others of your intelligence/etc... > > I have yet to see you tackle the problem of the creator, as > > I have presented numerous times. It is a very simplistic > > problem that seriously jeopardizes the creationist theory's > > attaining scientific status. (This topic will be posted > > again for reference.) > > While I don't agree that it's a simplistic problem or that it is > necessarily unscientific, you do well to emphasize it. It may not be simplistic for creationists to overcome, but as far as science is concerned, creationism blatantly violates one of natural sciences' rules. A disqualification is very simplistic to me; I am not concerned with your getting around it--that is your problem. > > I can assure you that keeping us in suspense does not help > > your position at all. I can also assure you that your latest > > article explaining some of your points and making some silly > > accusations at evolutionists does not support your position > > with any real evidence. > > Since I did not claim that it did, I'm not quite sure how to reply to > that. I notice as well that you have not responded to my "accusations" > (as you call them; they weren't - just observations) except to call > them "silly". That is no rebuttal at all. It is plain to see that my > observations apply to you as well as they do to anyone (myself, for > example) and that they remain outstanding. Apology here for the first statement of my paragraph, which is directed at not YOU personally, but creationists in general. It is also overly sarcastically stated. > > You have simply made vague assertions > > and proclaimed your righteousness based upon the denigration > > of your opposition. > > Well, I thought my assertions were fairly specific. Maybe they > weren't, I don't know. The rest of the your sentence is a bit > intemperate, as well as untrue and unnecessary. I guess I would > characterize it as, um, drivel. Religious-sounding drivel at that! In that case, why don't you repost them with some clarity so we can discuss their flaws. Perhaps you will want to save everyone's time by not posting attacks upon evolution. This newsgroup is for the discussion of "scientific creationism" (if it qualifies as science at all), not for attacks upon evolution. I will repeat: scientists will examine science. Meanwhile creationists have yet to qualify their theory as science. So if you are trying to help creationism, you should not have anything to say about evolution until you get yourself into the scientific arena. ______________________________________________________________________ Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }