daver@hp-pcd.UUCP (daver) (01/20/85)
>Ultra-orthodox Jews also believe in the Genesis account of creation.
It's hard to categorize "Ultra-orthodox" Jews, as there are so many different
groups which consider themselves in that category. The view I've heard most
often, from observant but not fanatical orthodox Jews, is that the creation
story is a fable which served to give legitimacy to the real meat of the Old
Testament, the laws. It is interesting to see people eating their ham
sandwiches and arguing that the Bible is the word of God and must be accepted
as absolute law.
Dave Rabinowitz
hplabs!hp-pcd!davermrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (01/20/85)
In article <239@ihu1m.UUCP> bermes@ihu1m.UUCP (Terry Bermes) writes: > Is that why the creationist theory is prevented from being taught in > the schools by the legal system? Who is using the legal system to silence > whom? 1) Creationism is not science. It is religion. Christians and only christians are the sole proponents. It comes straight from some of the many "literal" interpretations of the Bible, according to many leading proponents. This same finding has repeatedly been made by courts of law around the United States. If you wish to debate this, try net.origins. 2) State support of religion is banned by our constitution. That is why creationist "theory" is prevented from being taught in the schools by the legal system. If you wish to change the constitution, feel free to try. For the sake of nettiquette, please place responses in net.origins only. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (01/22/85)
>1) Creationism is not science. It is religion. Christians and only Christians > are the sole proponents. This statement is not quite accurate. Ultra-orthodox Jews also believe in the Genesis account of creation. And we should not forget Khumeini and his followers, they all belong to the creationists' crowd. The Ultra-orthodox in Israel tried, unsuccessfully, to introduce creationism pseudo-science into the public school curriculum. (If they were successful they could potentially endanger Israel's security, as Israel's existence depends heavily on science and technology.) I also read that the Ultra-orthodox in Israel were planning a creationism conference. American creationists (Fundamental Christians) were supposed to speak in that conference. This seems to be a bizarre situation, considering the deep rooted Ultra-orthodox Jews' resentment of Christianity! -- Yosi Hoshen, Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, (312)-979-7321, Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
shad@tikal.UUCP (Warren Shadwick) (01/25/85)
In article <322@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > >2) State support of religion is banned by our constitution. That is why > creationist "theory" is prevented from being taught in the schools by > the legal system. If you wish to change the constitution, feel free to > try. > Which constitution are you speaking of here? and what state? This must be another instance of quoting the constitution of the USSR (the church and the state shall be separate). Education in the United States has had a longer history of religious affiliation than federal government involvment. I also note that you should have said the public schools and not "the schools"; some of the finest schools in the United States have been the religious or religiously affiliated schools. The U.S. Constituion has already been alterred by our legal system. The current non-establishment clause (of Amendment 1) being interpreted as a wall of separation and the free excercise clause being totally ignored. Warren N. Shadwick
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (01/25/85)
In article <945@ihuxn.UUCP> jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) writes: > > >1) Creationism is not science. It is religion. Christians and only > > Christians are the sole proponents. > > This statement is not quite accurate. > Ultra-orthodox Jews also believe in the Genesis account of creation. > And we should not forget Khumeini and his followers, they all belong > to the creationists' crowd. Ooops. You're right. Ok, let me rephrase it, to make it more accurate. Creationism is not science. It is religion. Those who believe in the (purported) authority of Genesis are the sole proponents. Thanks, Yosi. Any other criticisms? -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (01/28/85)
In article <80@tikal.UUCP> shad@tikal.UUCP (Warren Shadwick) writes: > In article <322@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > >2) State support of religion is banned by our constitution. That is why > > creationist "theory" is prevented from being taught in the schools by > > the legal system. If you wish to change the constitution, feel free to > > try. > Which constitution are you speaking of here? and what state? This must > be another instance of quoting the constitution of the USSR (the church > and the state shall be separate). > The U.S. Constituion has already been alterred by our legal system. The > current non-establishment clause (of Amendment 1) being interpreted as > a wall of separation and the free excercise clause being totally ignored. I suppose you're trying to make some sort of rhetorical point, because you identify first ammendment in your second paragraph. If you'd like to say something, why not spit it out, and quit pussyfooting around with vague insults and assertions? -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (01/30/85)
In article <331@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >In article <945@ihuxn.UUCP> jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) writes: >> >> >1) Creationism is not science. It is religion. Christians and only >> > Christians are the sole proponents. >> >> This statement is not quite accurate. >> Ultra-orthodox Jews also believe in the Genesis account of creation. >> And we should not forget Khumeini and his followers, they all belong >> to the creationists' crowd. > >Ooops. You're right. Ok, let me rephrase it, to make it more accurate. > >Creationism is not science. It is religion. Those who believe in the >(purported) authority of Genesis are the sole proponents. > >Thanks, Yosi. Any other criticisms? >-- > >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh Haven't you heard of the ICR (Institute of Creation Research) based in San Diego? There are hundreds of Biologists, Chemists, and Physicists who believe in creation science on the basis of scientific evidence alone. There is as much SCIENTIFIC evidence behind Creation theory as there is the Evolutionary theory. Please don't make statements that are not based on scientific facts such as: (Creationism is not science. It is religion.) If you would like some names, facts, etc. I would be glad to furnish them upon demand. Dan
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (01/31/85)
In article <259@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) writes: > >Haven't you heard of the ICR (Institute of Creation Research) based in >San Diego? There are hundreds of Biologists, Chemists, and Physicists >who believe in creation science on the basis of scientific evidence alone. >There is as much SCIENTIFIC evidence behind Creation theory as there is >the Evolutionary theory. Please don't make statements that are not based >on scientific facts such as: (Creationism is not science. It is religion.) >If you would like some names, facts, etc. I would be glad to furnish them >upon demand. > > Dan The ICR is not an accepted scientific organization, and it was most definately founded on religious ground not scientific. In fact it is closely associated with Dr Morris who is a *minister* not a scientist(he is pastor of a church not far from here). I would be very surprised to find out that any members of that organization are not *also* members of the orthodox/fundamentalist wing of some religion which accepts the authority of Genisis, which is what it would take to establish that it is *not* a religious "theory". If the "scientific" evidence for creationism you are talking about is the stuff I have seen(the SOR pamphlets, other tracts, and a couple of "scientific" books) it is totally worthless. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or quad1!psivax!friesen
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (02/01/85)
In article <259@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) writes: > In article <331@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > >Creationism is not science. It is religion. Those who believe in the > >(purported) authority of Genesis are the sole proponents. > > Haven't you heard of the ICR (Institute of Creation Research) based in > San Diego? There are hundreds of Biologists, Chemists, and Physicists > who believe in creation science on the basis of scientific evidence alone. > There is as much SCIENTIFIC evidence behind Creation theory as there is > the Evolutionary theory. Please don't make statements that are not based > on scientific facts such as: (Creationism is not science. It is religion.) > If you would like some names, facts, etc. I would be glad to furnish them > upon demand. Regular readers of net.origins are well aware of the ICR and its claims. The scientific facts are that the "science" coming from the ICR is ludicrous. It is regularly discussed here in net.origins. If you would like to bring up some of those arguments, please feel welcome. But be prepared to defend them. My statement still holds true: those who believe in the (purported) authority of Genesis are the sole proponents of creationism. Even if they are also biologists, chemists, or physicists. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/02/85)
>Haven't you heard of the ICR (Institute of Creation Research) based in >San Diego? There are hundreds of Biologists, Chemists, and Physicists >who believe in creation science on the basis of scientific evidence alone. >There is as much SCIENTIFIC evidence behind Creation theory as there is >the Evolutionary theory. Please don't make statements that are not based >on scientific facts such as: (Creationism is not science. It is religion.) >If you would like some names, facts, etc. I would be glad to furnish them >upon demand. > > Dan I guess none of them communicate with this net, then. What we see here is a mixture of pseudo-science, fable, and falsehood masquerading as scientific creationism. Creationism may not be religion, but it seems to be linked with some kind of mental pathology that causes very selective vision when it comes to evidence from the whole breadth of scientific observation. I doubt there is anyone reading this wierd and wonderful newsgroup who has NOT heard of the ICR, but the few hundred (are there really?) "Biologists, Chemists, and Physicists who believe in creation science on the basis of scientific evidence alone" hardly provide evidence of the scientific credibility of the enterprise. After all, when you try to overturn an enormously wide interlinked mesh of evidence and theory, you have to supply a satisfactory counter- theory for ALL of it, not just one tiny bit like whether species evolve or were created more-or-less as they are now. You must account for the facts of high-energy physics and astrophysics, sociology and botany, geology and chemistry .... Your creation "science" fails utterly to do this. All we EVER hear from creation "scientists" is `evolution cannot account for this "fact" or that.' Half the time the "facts" are false, half the time there is no problem accounting for them within "normal" science, and a microscopic proportion of the time (haven't seen one yet) a serious problem is illuminated. But never have I seen on this net a POSITIVE argument supporting creation science. Normal science is full of discarded theories, theories that looked good and were accepted by everyone. They were not discarded without a fight, but they were discarded finally when there was both a new theory and evidence that indicated the superiority of the new theory. People like to hold onto their old ideas, which is why creationists still exist, over a century after better theories were developed. But let's not keep pretending that creation science exists, without giving evidence IN FAVOUR OF CREATIONISM. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (02/02/85)
In article <259@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) writes: >Haven't you heard of the ICR (Institute of Creation Research) based in >San Diego? There are hundreds of Biologists, Chemists, and Physicists >who believe in creation science on the basis of scientific evidence alone. >There is as much SCIENTIFIC evidence behind Creation theory as there is >the Evolutionary theory. Please don't make statements that are not based >on scientific facts such as: (Creationism is not science. It is religion.) >If you would like some names, facts, etc. I would be glad to furnish them >upon demand. > Dan I saw the director of ICR (name escapes me, this was in 1981) give a talk in Berkeley. Quite a show. His "scientific" arguments were totally fallacious. For example, he stated that "evolutionists" believed that the whale evolved from a cow-like animal (reasonably true), and he "debunked" this by wondering whether it was the front end of the cow that turned into a whale head first, or was it the tail that turned into a fluke (he showed a picture of both possibilities). Since no scientists argues that either happened, this was a debunking a *self-invented* argument. It is easy to show your opponents are stupid if you get to put words in their mouths. He also threw up a slide of a simple amino acid, and showed how improbable it would be that this sequence necessary for life would assemble at random from the "primodial soup". This is true, but (a) it is not necessarily true that any given amino acid arose randomly (as opposed to arising under natural selection pressures), and (b) it assumes that this amino acid is the only possible life-supporting one of its kind. There might be billions of alternatives which would work as well, but only one is necessary. His argument is akin to the following scenario: Let us roll 1 million dice (6 sided). When they are rolled, any given result is wildly improbable (6 ^ 1e9), but I am guaranteed that I will get one result. Then this guy comes along and says "Oh, that particular configuration is so improbable some intelligence must have set it up". In fact, despite Dan's assertion, he gave NOT ONE single piece of scientific evidence to back up creation. He spent his entire time "debunking". These are wildly distinct activities; to argue (with good rhetoric but bad science) that a theorem is true is one thing; to have scientific evidence to back up a different view is another. Since his lecture was precisely to explain "Scientific Creationism", he clearly either had nothing to explain or did not think it would stand up to scrutiny. If you do have something better (i.e. scientific evidence), I would be interested in seeing it posted. I have yet to see any that even masqueraded as fact -- all I have seen (on this and other occassions) is continual "debunking", very little of it very effective, scientifically speaking. -- Ken Arnold ================================================================= Of COURSE we can implement your algorithm. We've got this Turing machine emulator...
gjphw@iham1.UUCP (02/02/85)
In response to an overly strong statement about the classification of creationism, a comment arrived: From ihnp4!pesnta!pertec!scgvaxd!dan Wed Dec 31 18:00:00 1969 (!!) > Haven't you heard of the ICR (Institute of Creation Research) based in > San Diego? There are hundreds of Biologists, Chemists, and Physicists > who believe in creation science on the basis of scientific evidence alone. > There is as much SCIENTIFIC evidence behind Creation theory as there is > the Evolutionary theory. Please don't make statements that are not based > on scientific facts such as: (Creationism is not science. It is religion.) The ICR is an organization of approximately 800 individuals who subscribe to and support special creationism (i.e., cosmogenesis as literally interpreted from the Bible). One of the requirements for entry into this organization is an advanced degree in science. In fact, there are no physicists in this organization, a few inactive biologists and chemists, with the overwhelming majority of the members holding master's degrees or better in engineering. The constitution of the ICR has been discussed many times before in this newsgroup, and will undoubtedly be discussed many times again in the future. Furthermore, I am prepared to dispute the claim that *hundreds* of people in science believe in creation science on the basis of the evidence alone. The number of individuals with advanced training in science, not engineering, who hold with special creationism is no more than one hundred. Also, fight the tendency to ascribe any criticism of Darwin's mechanisms for evolution as a vote for creationism. Since my background is in physics, I can personally dispute only those topics where creationism impinges on my speciality. About two months ago, several contributors, including myself, brought out topics from creationism which either violated the accepted facts or common understanding from physics, chemistry, and astronomy (areas ancillary to the creationism-evolution debate). Where specific predictions are possible, creationism either agrees with mainstream science or violates experimental and observational data in these areas. There is almost no support for creationism in physics. The summary statement that *creationism is religion* is made in agreement with rulings by two federal judges, one in Arkansas and one in Louisiana. At least for Arkansas, the suit against the state's Balanced Treatment Act was brought by the ACLU on behalf of 15 religious and civic leaders in the state, and was not an attempt by mainstream scientists to protect their turf. One of the objectives for this newsgroup was to establish the arguments for and against creationism. The assertion that there is *...much scientific evidence behind creation theory ...* is exactly the basis of this debate, and has yet to be substantiated in my humble opinion. -- Patrick Wyant AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL) *!iham1!gjphw
tet@uvaee.UUCP (Thomas E. Tkacik) (02/04/85)
> >Ooops. You're right. Ok, let me rephrase it, to make it more accurate. > > > >Creationism is not science. It is religion. Those who believe in the > >(purported) authority of Genesis are the sole proponents. > > Haven't you heard of the ICR (Institute of Creation Research) based in > San Diego? There are hundreds of Biologists, Chemists, and Physicists > who believe in creation science on the basis of scientific evidence alone. > There is as much SCIENTIFIC evidence behind Creation theory as there is > the Evolutionary theory. Please don't make statements that are not based > How many of these scientists are not Christians or Jewish? They believe in the authority of Genesis, and formed the ICR only later when a solely religious basis for creationism proved to be unconvincing. If you do not believe this, look up their early writings. --- Tom Tkacik ...!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!uvaee!tet
shad@teldata.UUCP (02/05/85)
In article <333@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > > The U.S. Constituion has already been alterred by our legal system. The > > current non-establishment clause (of Amendment 1) being interpreted as > > a wall of separation and the free excercise clause being totally ignored. > > I suppose you're trying to make some sort of rhetorical point, because you > identify first ammendment in your second paragraph. If you'd like to say > something, why not spit it out, and quit pussyfooting around with vague > insults and assertions? If anything, I was trying to avoid insult. I took exception to misquoting our Constitution in the original article. The courts have perverted the intent of the 1st Amendment. Try reading the Constitution and see if it states that there shall be "no state funding of religion." Or if it states "religion shall be separate from education." -- Warren N. Shadwick ... ihnp4!uw-beaver!tikal!shad
teitz@aecom.UUCP (02/05/85)
Why do you speak only of the ultra-Orthodox. I am not "ultra"-Orthodox, just a simple Orthodox Jew, and I believe in creationism. I find scientific explainations of creation very difficult, as I once wrote here in this net. There is nothing wrong with creationism. It does not in any way contradict science. The Israelis could live very well and defend themselves very nicely without te big bang theory or any other "scientific" theory of creation. Eliyahu Teitz. > > >1) Creationism is not science. It is religion. Christians and only Christians > > are the sole proponents. > > This statement is not quite accurate. > Ultra-orthodox Jews also believe in the Genesis account of creation. > And we should not forget Khumeini and his followers, they all belong > to the creationists' crowd. > > The Ultra-orthodox in Israel tried, unsuccessfully, to introduce > creationism pseudo-science into the public school curriculum. > (If they were successful they could potentially endanger Israel's > security, as Israel's existence depends heavily on science and > technology.) >
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (02/07/85)
In article <502@teldata.UUCP> shad@teldata.UUCP (Warren Shadwick) writes: > In article <333@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > > > > The U.S. Constituion has already been alterred by our legal system. The > > > current non-establishment clause (of Amendment 1) being interpreted as > > > a wall of separation and the free excercise clause being totally ignored. > > > > I suppose you're trying to make some sort of rhetorical point, because you > > identify first ammendment in your second paragraph. If you'd like to say > > something, why not spit it out, and quit pussyfooting around with vague > > insults and assertions? > > If anything, I was trying to avoid insult. I took exception to misquoting > our Constitution in the original article. The courts have perverted the > intent of the 1st Amendment. Try reading the Constitution and see if it > states that there shall be "no state funding of religion." Or if it states > "religion shall be separate from education." Thank you for saying it clearly. The insult I was referring to was your "is this another quotation from the constitution of the USSR", which you removed from your citation. Since we're now talking constitutional arguments, I disagree. The writers of the constitution and the ammendments were fully aware that the constitution was to consist of general statements of principles which were later to be fleshed out through the processes of law and the courts. Unless you want a constitution which is the size of the US legal code, you have no other choice. Like the Bible, there is no one clear interpretation of the constitution. Like the Bible, the interpretations in use are usually ones which cause relatively few inconsistancies and handle most day-to-day circumstances. The interpretations aren't sacred. The two examples you cite are merely interpretations. If you want to argue their merits, I'd be happy to oblige. That's what net.religion is for. It's just that it's hard to understand the basis of someone's argument until a common ground of shared assumptions is found. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (02/11/85)
In article <1125@aecom.UUCP> teitz@aecom.UUCP writes: > > Why do you speak only of the ultra-Orthodox. I am not "ultra"-Orthodox, > just a simple Orthodox Jew, and I believe in creationism. I find scientific > explainations of creation very difficult, as I once wrote here in this net. > There is nothing wrong with creationism. It does not in any way contradict > science. The Israelis could live very well and defend themselves very nicely > without te big bang theory or any other "scientific" theory of creation. > > Eliyahu Teitz. > Just because you find something "difficult" is *not* a valid reason to reject it. I have difficulty understanding quantum physics, should I therefor reject it it? If creationists ever did *real* origunal research there might not be any problem with it, but as has been pointed out all they do is rehash old argument *against* evolution. This leads to stagnation and cessation of progress. THIS is where the danger to science, and perhaps Israeli defense comes in, the habit of *not* thinking, just accepting old answers. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or quad1!psivax!friesen