dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (12/19/84)
Discussing human/chimpanzee crosses... > [Greg Kuperberg] > No one would dare try the experiment. Perhaps. But not because no one would like to... > [Mike Huybensz] > I'd say that it would be worth an attempt. I would not be surprised if it was > successful. (Please, if we're going to discuss ethics of this sort of thing, > move it to net.religion or net.philosophy.) It really would stick in the > craw of creationists if they had to admit that humans and apes were > "of a kind". (i) Would it? Why? (ii) Would your motivation for such an attempt be simply to irritate a group of individuals with whom you disagree? Scientific. > But of course, they'd squirm away with some new BS claim > equally unsupported by the facts and the Bible. (i) Allow me to squirm in advance. Demonstrating that something is possible in the laboratory does not show that it happens, or, more the the point, happened, in nature. Clearly it doesn't now (that we know about) or we wouldn't even be discussing whether such a thing is possible or not. A similar example might run something like this. Suppose one were able to synthesize life in the laboratory, without using pre-fab biological material (e.g., starting with just the raw chemicals, build the amino acids, nucleotides, etc., and end up with a living cell). You have just created life. Does this constitute scientific evidence for creation? I presume that it does not. (ii) If creationists are said to be unscientific because their contentions are unsupported by the facts, why are they said to be Biblical (and criticized *on that basis*) if their contentions are unsupported by the Bible? One cannot say, in reply, "well, they *claim* to be Biblical". The full text of the proper reply is "they *claim* to be scientific." -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois "I'b dot a dubby! I do I'b dot!"
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (12/21/84)
In article <586@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > Discussing human/chimpanzee crosses... > > > [Mike Huybensz] > > ... It really would stick in the > > craw of creationists if they had to admit that humans and apes were > > "of a kind". > > (i) Would it? Why? In case you're not familiar with it, creationists created the idea of "kinds" as a classificatory tool to explain the limitations of variation since creation. Animals within a "kind" may interbreed, but there cannot be crosses between "kinds". I've never heard this stuff carried any further, such as making a list of "kinds". In addition, the ability to interbreed with apes obviously bolsters the claim of descent from the apes, which creationists have no choice but to deny. > (ii) Would your motivation for such an attempt be simply to irritate a > group of individuals with whom you disagree? Scientific. No, merely human. Scientists are human too, you know. In any event, the motivation doesn't change the facts of an argument. > > But of course, they'd squirm away with some new BS claim > > equally unsupported by the facts and the Bible. > > (i) Allow me to squirm in advance. Demonstrating that something > is possible in the laboratory does not show that it happens, > or, more the the point, happened, in nature. Clearly it > doesn't now (that we know about) or we wouldn't even be > discussing whether such a thing is possible or not. Correct. However, the purpose of the experiment in this case could be to provide data that would force restructuring of an opposing hypothesis. Such as abandonment of "kinds", or the discovery that the apes are the descendents of Cain or suchlike. > (ii) If creationists are said to be unscientific because their > contentions are unsupported by the facts, why are they said > to be Biblical (and criticized *on that basis*) if their > contentions are unsupported by the Bible? One cannot say, > in reply, "well, they *claim* to be Biblical". The full > text of the proper reply is "they *claim* to be scientific." Creationists claim both to be Biblical and supported by the facts (thus scientific.) Both claims are bogus. The claims of factual support are usually fraudulent, foolish, or (snicker :-) satanic. The claims of biblical support are wishful thinking of the sort that has brought about the thousands of Christian sects and their wildly varying and contradictary beliefs over the past 2000 years. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh