sidney@linus.UUCP (Sidney Markowitz) (02/27/85)
[...replace this bug eater with your unnecessary line...] I've been reading net.origins for a short while hoping to gain some bit of insight into the viewpoints of the "scientific creationists." It's been awfully difficult, when no one who believes it will say just what scientific creationism is in any detail. Anyway, Paul DuBois made some statements that have not been yet questioned that I cannot leave alone, so... In article <730@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > >We in this newsgroup might distinguish the punctuationalists and the >gradualists, but does the general public, or even most educated people? >No. Since the intended audience for the pamphlets (college >undergraduates) lies mainly within the latter group, your point has some >merit but is overstated. Paul stated it in an even stronger fashion in another posting in this series. He seems to be saying that creationists can validly use arguments against gradualism to further their purpose when talking to an audience who are naively gradualist. That sounds to me like engaging in marketing instead of scientific debate! Here's an equivalent scenario: I'll claim that I am a proponent of "scientific continuism" which states, in simple form, that matter is fundamentally continuous in nature, infinitely divisible while retaining its properties. Continuism is in contrast to the "atomic theory" that is mistakenly proposed by the scientific establishment. In my pamphlets I will support continuism by pointing out the evidential problems with Bohr's model of the atom. Of course there is the more complex, quantum theory of the atom, but my naive audience probably thinks of atoms as charged particles whirling in orbits. Now, have I made a case for continuism or have I not? Have I done anything except rehash the lines of reasoning that led to the evolution (pardon the expression) of quantum mechanics? Does presenting evidence against gradualism do more than set the stage for making a case for punctualism (or some other theory that explains and predicts the evidence better)? >I will make an observation here that I would like non-creationists >reading this to consider carefully. It has been objected a number of >times that the creationists set up an artificial, unnecessary and false >dichotomy between Darwin and Genesis, presenting the view that evolution >equals gradualism. > >Now, remembering that I have defended discussion of evolution in these >terms on the grounds that for large numbers of people, the equivalence >is where they're at, I also know that likewise when most people think of >creationism, they think "Genesis", and so I cannot really complain too >much if people characterize creationism that way, and criticize it as >such. Fair's fair. And unfair's unfair. Yes you (Paul) can complain if people characterize creationism as monolithically "Genesis" even if it undermines the straw-man tactics available by using Darwinism to represent evolutionary theory. This is not a matter of parity - You don't get to use a logical fallacy simply by giving the other side permission to use the same fallacy sometimes. I have another motive for my sticking up for your right to have your views presented accurately -- If you and other creationists here get worked up enough about people claiming that you all believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis as the basis for creationism, maybe we'll finally get to find out just what you *do* believe in! > [ ... ] But let me ask you non-creationists this question: >if we creationists are to take your objection seriously and discuss >different evolutionary views (e.g., gradualism, punctuationalism, neo- >Lamarckianism, etc.) in terms of their relative merits and weaknesses, >are you going to do *your* homework and treat different creationist >views (e.g., young/old earth, progressive/instant creation, geocentrism >(ugh!), etc.) on *their* relative merits and weaknesses? Or are you >going to continue to trot out Genesis as a club to beat over the head >those of us who never use it as an argument? > What homework? I am sufficiently interested in the topic to read the articles in this newsgroup. One nice aspect of this forum is that I have an opportunity to learn more about a subject (scientific creationism) without having to go out and track down obscure pamphlets, books, get on mailing lists, etc. So far I have seen almost nothing about the details of different creationist views, nor any indication that any creationist on the net has posted any, nor even enough to lead me to expect that there is more I would be interested in finding out elsewhere. >I realize that I'm perhaps a bit disingenuous in writing the above few >paragraphs, since I haven't presented *any* particular creationist view, >even though I've been challenged to, and often. Guilty as charged! Finally, a creationist here not only addressing that charge, but admitting to it! Now are you going to present a view and open things up for debate, or simply continue as an admitted repeat offender? >It gives me great trepidataion, though, to discover what amazing >propositions non-creationists expect me as a creationist to defend, on a >scientific basis of course. Like the problem of evil. There's a simple solution to your problem. State your own proposition to defend. This gives me an idea. Perhaps the evolutionists here should stop taking the bait being offered. Simply don't respond to arguments that try to debunk a theory without presenting an alternative. Certainly don't respond to ad hominum arguments. In fact, maybe what they can do is offer straw-man creationist arguments and knock them down. Then we might see creationists actually defending creationist views. >Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois P.S., to Paul, >[ ... ] One could, if one wished, assert that you are giving a >proof-by-handwave, regurgitating your educational input. Whether this >would be deliberate or through simple failure to check what you were >spoon-fed, I do not know. As neither alternative is particularly >attractive, I will refrain from suggesting it. I admire your tact and restraint in refraining from stooping to suggest such things in the middle of a scientific debate :-). -- Sidney Markowitz ARPA: sidney@mit-mc UUCP: ...{decvax,utzoo,philabs,security,allegra,genrad}!linus!sidney