NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/origins/14646

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-22 | 6.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!morrow.stanford.edu!pangea.Stanford.EDU!salem
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Salem)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty...
Date: 23 Nov 1992 03:42:23 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Lines: 96
Distribution: world,local
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James J. Lippard) writes:
>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.)

    Creationism was begun as an attempt, conspiracy, to blur distinctions
about what is science and what is not. We heard logic like "Everything
is based on Faith." "Science is another Religion because of the first
assertion." There have been good definitions of what science is and is
not made to this group many times, and why Creationism and the attempt
by political religionists to blur these destinctions is an error, posted
to this group many times. Pseudosciences cannot define critical and
decidable tests of there models that use emperical data that can be
gathered and applied to the test over and over again. Astrology simply
cannot pass tests posed for it, or it cannot frame propositions which
are not so vague so that they can be true for some people any day, read
the astrology columns in the newspaper. Creationism fails as a science
because its basic assumption cannot be put to a test and is based on
religious belief only.

    This group is here because the same old misunderstandings recurr
over and over again, especially every fall and regularly thereafter. There
has been a steady crop of uneducated people asking the same questions.
This country has a deteroriating education system, especially in the
sciences and math, and the religionists have been active during the 1980's
with their own brand of misinformation. The USNET is a tap into the
intellectual backwaters of America, of provicinal opinion, and it is
our duty to inform these poor unfortunate souls. There is a steady
reactionary movement in America based on Old Time Religion and these
folks need to be taken on and civilized as well. This group is a
political battle ground and is really more that than a scientific or
philosophical one. That is why there never is a philosophical or
scientific resolution in this group. There is a political hidden
agenda from the conservative relogious Right which is behind Creationism
and other causes. This is quite well documented here in California.

    I have a saying "Everything has the germ of truth in it." That
doesn't mean that the way an opinion is stated or used is well founded,
only that some correct perception or idea is involved in the impetus to
believe it. There are some reasonable  ideas to be believed behind
Creationism, but not necessarily Creationism itself. If we are going to
make pogress in this group we need to get to those ideas that are
behind Creationism. The problem is that these ideas are held as
prejudices by most of the people who accept Creationism. The ideas
are based on their conception of the uniqueness and favored status
of Mankind in the Universe, but they are felt as religious dogma and
prejudice and never honestly stated and examined. To have these ideas
stated and examined for what they are would make progress in this
group. I think that the Creationists and Religionists do not want
these ideas discussed at length and especially what light pursuits
like primate studies shed on them. It is the cherished nature of
these prejuidces that provides much of the impetus and emotion for
opposition to evolution, not any scientific knowledge or criticism.
The revolutionary thing about Evolution, and the social sciences as
well, is that for the first time in history there was a cogant alternative
presented to a theistic and trancendant model of human nature and
morals.

>   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).)

    I have been exhorting Mr. Bales to clarify himself, now, for
four years, and to no avail. He consciously ignores questions put to
him and retorts arrogantly "I have an answer because I have an answer"
but addes "I cannot answer now because I'm too busy." and never answers.
What replies we get are purely rhetorical and ignore objections to his
opinions already raised. I suggest that you keep an open mind and read
his next few posts and then, as a philosopher, try to see if he has
a foundation and is not arguing from prejudice. Then challenge him
to give his point of view a philosophy. You will fail, as have I. I
asked Bob to frame his objections to evolution within a larger view
that does not draw only from religious prejudices which he is lothe
to state publically. Bob probably has affiliations that provide the
source of prejudice, but he does not admit to this, nor can he be
compelled to, but he has made statements of a religious nature,
including a blanket view that the Bible is True, and remarkes made
about faith healing (1988), that point to influiences he refuses to
discuss at length or to show that he is not prejudically influienced
by them in his arguments.

    I think that here ARE philosophical objections to evolution.
When these are given a systematic aring then maybe this group can
move to a higher plane than "Creationism is a science...is not."
I think that Creationism is not a science, but is a ruse to disguize
religious dogma within a scientific sounding facade, a pseudoscience.
Before we go further, YOU might give a definition of science.

Bruce Salem