NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/origins/14614

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-21 | 3.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!ncar!noao!arizona!arizona.edu!skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu!lippard
From: [e-mail] (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Nov 92 18:59:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Lines: 49
Nntp-Posting-Host: skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James J. Lippard) writes:
>}   My position is that there *are* parts of creationism which are
>}scientific.  That is, there are creationists who have put forth theories
>}about one thing or another which are scientifically testable.  In most
>}cases, the tests have been done and the theories have been falsified.
>}Having one's theories falsified does NOT make one nonscientific.  The
>}history of science is the history of failed theories.
>}   (Some theories of creationism which have been falsified are flood geology
>}and the vapor canopy theory.)
>
>Please note that I did NOT ask if "parts of creationism" were scientific.
>There are "parts of astrology" that are scientific, as well as "parts" of
>virtually EVERY bit of BS that abounds (that I've seen you debunk).  I DID
>ask if CREATIONISM is scientific.  Your misdirection is not appreciated.
>
>Or is your position that CREATIONISM AS A WHOLE is scientific?

I think that there is a tendency to throw around the words "scientific,"
"nonscientific," and "pseudoscientific" in a way that is really nothing
more than ad hominem argument.  "Creationism as a whole" is not scientific,
but so what?  Neither is knowledge as a whole, nor even the institutions
of science as a whole.  I do agree that what falls under the name "scientific
creationism" is, for the most part, not terribly scientific.
   What I object to in your line of argument is that you appear to want
to dismiss every thing creationists have said or could possibly say simply
by getting an admission that "creationism as a whole is not scientific."
I think, on the other hand, that each proposed argument, theory, and
criticism of evolution must be taken on its own merits.  (There is the
practical problem of how to deal with the quantity of these arguments;
it is certainly reasonable to stop taking certain individuals and
institutions seriously after they have displayed an inability to defend
their positions.  But if creationism is to be so easily dismissed by
simply stating that it's not scientific, then I don't see why we need
a whole newsgroup to talk about it.)

   Another objection I have is your characterization of those who disagree
with you as liars.  I don't think that Bales has lied about whether or
not he has answered the above question.  (I think it's a little less clear
regarding the question of whether or not he has answered the question of
how he explains the congruence of radiometric dates (I've seen no explanation
from him), but I'm inclined to attribute it to a misunderstanding of the
question by Bales or a misunderstanding of his answer by everyone else (me
included).)

Jim Lippard              [e-mail]
Dept. of Philosophy      [e-mail]
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721