hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (02/02/85)
******************************************************************************
In response to Dan (and others that apply...):
Yes, I have heard of the ICR (Institute for Creation Research). In fact,
I have heard of numerous others (ie. Creation Research Society, ...). The
comment, which you attacked, is quite right. Creation is religious. The ICR
is a religous organization. You should not speak up until you realize what
they expect of their members. (All members must accept the Bible as literal
history and the like. Therefore, they are seeking evidence to support that.)
Do you really think that the members of these organizations can possibly be
scientific in their methods and practice? Duane Gish and Henry Morris may
have degrees, but Morris once said ... since the second law of themodynamics
has never been tested on a truly closed system (in reality, achieving a truly
closed system is virtually impossible), it must really apply to open systems.
(That is like saying ... since there is no such thing as a perfect circle,
pi-r-squared is really the area of a square. A bit extreme of a comparison,
but you get the idea.) Morris, by the way, is an engineer, not a biologist.
If you are not convinced of their irresponsibility toward science, read this:
When it comes down to the foundation of creationism, it is the divine
creator that holds everything together. Without that, the theory is
meaningless. Now, how in the world does one go about proving the
existence of a creator (assuming that one is able to clearly define it
in the first place)? What's more important, how does one go about
disproving the existence of a creator? The answer is: You can't!
A divine creator is supernatural; that is, it is beyond the norms of
nature in its characteristics and/or behavior. It is impossible for
any of the natural sciences to explain it. Therefore, to assume the
existence of a creator, which the creationists are doing (refer to
the membership requirements of the ICR and the CRS), is unjustifiable
in science. Since one cannot assume it, one must prove it, being that
everything else sits upon that assertion. Within science, that proof
is impossible.
If you are not convinced of the possible political connections with ultra-
fundamentalist groups such as the Moral Majority, please read the book
"Liberty and Justice for Some" by David Bollier. It thoroughly discusses
the political side of the New Right and the implications for American people.
Any open-minded individual reading the quotes sections at the end of each
chapter in this book will be enraged at the blatant irresponsiblity and
extremity of the New Right.
I did sense a bit of arrogance in some of past posts by pro-evolutionists.
I hope that will stop. I guess people cannot help being enraged when
a handful of religous extremists are finding some ways to bypass the
scientific community in determining what children should learn about
science. Isn't it interesting that the creationists are not interested
in acceptance by the scientific community? Why are they going directly
to the schools? (Is it a coincidence that related groups are the ones
trying to force prayer into the public schools? I think they are their
demands to a moment of silence now.) It could be that when you try to
impose absolute values on children, they tend to think in absolutes in
the future. One thing that Hitler made sure that he controlled was the
public schools. (Brainwashing is the keyword here.) Mel and Norma
Gabler, the famous Texas textbook censors, once said, "... when a child
reads in a math book that there are no absolutes, suddenly, every value
that he has been taught is lost. Next thing you know, he is out on the
streets hooked on drugs..." Can anyone tell me, in all honesty and
seriousness, whether this is a responsible statement? Luckily, their
efforts were checked last January, when the Equal-Time law of Texas was
repealed. In any case, science should be defined by the scientific
community, not by state legislatures or crack pot extremists. (I doubt
that the creationists would be very pleased if the equal-time rules
were imposed upon the church for science. ie. a mandatory statement
in all newly published Bibles stating that science rejects all super-
natural explanations of the universe.)
Well, I will end with a "HELLO!" to all of you. I am a newcomer currently
resident at cmu-cs-gandalf!hua. If you like to send me mail, you may be
better off using hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa via csnet.
Ciao!