NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/origins/14648

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-22 | 8.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!arizona.edu!skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu!lippard
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (James J. Lippard)
Date: 22 Nov 1992 23:29 MST
References: <[e-mail]>
 <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-Host: skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Lines: 142

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bruce Salem) writes...
>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

I think this is historically inaccurate (see Ronald L. Numbers, _The
Creationists_), though true of the major advocates of "scientific
creationism" today (e.g., the ICR).

>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

The newspaper astrology columns bear little resemblance to what it
is that astrologers do.  While astrology has failed virtually every
scientific test, it has not failed all of them--witness Michel Gauquelin
and the "Mars effect" which skeptics have been trying unsuccessfully for
decades to disprove.  (The debate still continues on sci.skeptic, in the
pages of the _Skeptical Inquirer_, and the _Journal of Scientific
Exploration_.)

>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.

So are your purposes just as political as the creationists?  It seems to
me that a good way to promote critical thinking is by demonstrating it.

My goal here is to learn about the theories and facts pertaining to
evolution and creationism, on the one hand, and about the methods of
reasoning, argument, and rationalization used by the participants in
the creation/evolution debate, on the other.  (And contribute what I
can here and there in the process.)

>    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.

These are certainly things I'm interested in.

>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.

Do you advocate an evolutionary account of ethics?  If so, is it purely
a descriptive account or does it have normative force?

>>   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 the group usually *is* on a higher plane than that.  Most
contributors here *do* address specific creationist arguments with
detailed rebuttals.

>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.

I don't think there is a definition (i.e., necessary and sufficient
conditions) of science.  All proposed definitions to date (including
Popper's falsifiability criterion for distinguishing science from
pseudoscience) either exclude things we generally do count as science
or include things we generally don't, or both.  I think some kind of
methodological criterion would be best, but there are difficulties
in coming up with one (see, e.g., Feyerabend's _Against Method_ or
Henry Bauer's _Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific
Method_).

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