drforsey@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Forsey) (12/11/84)
>ps. I repeat: where are the SOR #3 pamphlet criticisms? I'm almost ready with >#4 and I don't want to post it until I've seen the results of #3. I have been reading netnews discussions on the origins of life for about two and a half years, during that time I have seen rantings and ravings on both sides but had recently thought that some reasonable information was being generated. Ray asks why there has been no response to his pamphlet; certainly I would like to think that it is because someone out there is trying to do some reasonable research into the questions, but perhaps a better reason is shock, or even regret. I won't expound on the principles of thermodynamics, fossil formation, circular reasoning or what constitutes a "scientific" paper. I read the pamphlet with what can only be discribed as profound wonder at how completely untouched Ray's arguments were by what has transpired in this newsgroup, at how closely the position presented followed the dogma of creationist literature, and at how the pamphlet was geared to preaching a particular point of view with an evangelical fervor that suffers no countering viewpoints. Perhaps there have been no responses because the issues have been delt with, and answered before; perhaps because SOR #1, #2, and #3 provide answers to questions about creationism that extend far beyond the "scientific" points raised. But perhaps they speak only of Ray. A number of months ago I presented a still unanswered challenge, that I shall repeat again here with some of the conditions relaxed. "Can any creationist on the net provide a detailed critique of their own position, or cite any creationist literature that deals in any way with the shortcomings of their own arguments? Can any of you, as creationists, tell me what your theory falls short on explaining?" Or does it explain all? Dave Forsey Computer Graphics Laboratory University of Waterloo, Waterloo Canada. P.S. There have been criticisms of SOR #1, #2, and #3 posted to the net, have these counterarguments been incorporated into new versions of these propaganda sheets?