esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (11/02/84)
[] From: carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) Subject: Creationists are not stupid > It follows that scientists should not be surprised or indignant when > their scientifically cogent arguments fail to convince the creationists; on > the contrary, that is what one would expect. Further, it would be well for > scientists to be consistent in their scientific attitudes. They, of all > people, have the least reason to take a judgmental attitude toward human > behavior, since science is based on the belief that all phenomena in the > natural world can be rationally explained, including human behavior. Read *Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Consent* by Wayne C. Booth. Then you will think before saying such inane things. > What I am saying is that we need to try to achieve a genuinely > *scientific* understanding of the creationist movement. Such an > understanding would eschew the use of judgmental, moralistic terms such as > "stupid", "dishonest", "lazy", "evil," and the like. These terms have no > scientific meaning, and are merely words of abuse for people with whom one > has lost patience. Sounds to me like "scientism" at its worst. There are more things in science and nature than are dreamt of in your philosophy. -- more scientific than scientism-ists, Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's. Thanks. "What is the opportunity cost, in lives saved, of your current action?"