NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/k12/ed/science/1838

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-31 | 7.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!gatech!destroyer!caen!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!ames!olivea!isc-br![e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Hogan)
Newsgroups: k12.ed.science
Subject: Re: Evolution
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 31 Dec 92 16:06:42 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (news user)
Organization: ISC-Bunker Ramo
Lines: 135
Nntp-Posting-Host: mac06.isc-br.com

In article <[e-mail]>, dk@imager (Dave Knapp) writes:

>    Bruce's post contains a number of tired anti-evolution
> "evidences" that have been destroyed many times over; however, I
> think his post does have a lot of value for science students.
> That's because his post exemplifies perfectly the way that
> scientific arguments should NOT be carried out.  As a scientist,
> I am very careful when I am talking to colleagues or to
> non-scientists to use accepted norms for logic and argument to
> advance my ideas.  One of the most striking differences between
> "creation-scientists" and real scientists is the way they go
> about presenting their cases.
>
>    Just for the record, one can believe in Creation without being
> a "creationist."  Most Christians (myself included) believe firmly
> that God created the universe and everything in it.  I suppose
> that technically makes them creationists.  However, the word
> "creationist" has come to mean someone who believes that the
> universe was created less than 10,000 years ago, that there was a
> literal Noachim flood, and that Adam and Eve were not descended
> from other living creatures.
>
> With that in mind, let me show you how Bruce's arguments differ
> from standard scientific ones.
>
> 1.)  Bruce resorts to an argument mode called "ad hominem," which
> is Latin for "to the man."  That is, he attempts to discredit the
> theory of evolution by attacking those who believe in it.
>
> > You may also consider that the Creation model is not rejected by
> > many because it doesn't fit the observable facts, but rather
> > because it requires a personal Creator, which is not acceptable
> > to the Humanism that is the order of the day in our educational
> > system.
>
>   You see, here he manages to insinuate that those who reject a
> young Earth do so not because they are honest scientists, but
> because they don't want to believe in God.  This kind of argument
> is insulting, false, and not scientific.

Dave, Dave, slow down and take a breath.  You're reading too much into it.
However, I do apologize if I have offended or insulted anyone.  That is not
my intent or my M.O.  After listing several things to think about which were
the basis for thinking through what is preached in our schools, adding a
comment about "You may also consider that ... " does not sum up what I just
said or somehow become the crux of the argument.  Talk about straw men?!
And if you talk to the people on the street I do about origins, you get the
standard "since there is no God, evolution has to be true" level of thinking
from "many" people ( and please note again that I did not say _all_ ).
>
> 2.)  Bruce writes a great deal about the "Creation model," but
> nowhere defines it or details any predictions it makes or any
> evidence for it.  Every single one of his "evidences" is
> presented as evidence AGAINST evolution.  He never presents any
> evidence in favor of the (yet-to-be-defined) "creation model."
> This, by the way, is a red flag for pseudoscience: you will find
> that frequently the adherents to pseudosciences spend most of
> their time attacking so-called "mainstream science" and
> practically no time developing testable predictions for their won
> theories.
>
Hmmm...you have a good point here.  I simply tried to offer some things to
stir up the thinking juices for in-class discussions.  There may be (and I
am sure you think there are) answers to these points but they may not be
good answers and noone should take your word or mine for it but should think
it through for themselves until they can ask a good question that gets to the
root of it.  That was my intent.  I am not a brilliant logician or a
long-time "Creationist" and anyone could question my qualifications.  But
good thinking skills are not hindered by the lack of "qualifications".

The objective in mentioning several items (7) was to provide enough grist for
someone who was really interested to look up and find what the Creation
model is.  Home-schooling my own children has taught me that I must not do
for them what they can do and should do for themselves.  So I never intended
to lay out the whole Creation model.  If the person is able to think on
their own, this may be enough to direct them to find out.  If they can't
think on their own, then telling them the whole story is not productive.

> 3.)  Bruce misrepresents evolution.  He claims a prediction for
> evolution that it does not make:
>
> > simply  ask for the millions of examples that should be there if
> > evolution is a  billions-of- years process with billions upon
> > billions upon billions of  mutations and trials and errors.
>
> I'll let others more qualified than I am explain why this
> statement is completely bogus.  My point is just that Bruce has
> created a non-existent "straw man" of evolution.
>
There is no straw man.  You just have no answer that fits what is found in the
fossil record.

> 4.)  Bruce misrepresents science itself:
>
> > And, since none of us were there, both systems are a system of
> > faith when neither one can be scientifically proven.  Scientific
> > proof requires a duplication of the event.  Not possible here.
>
> I think we've already seen that "scientific proof" is an
> oxymoron.  Think about the implications of Bruce's last
> statement, though: that a scientific explanation of an event
> requires duplication of the event.  With a single broad stroke,
> Bruce has completely nullified entire fields of accepted science;
> for example, astronomy, which is an observation science that by
> its very nature cannot duplicate events.

No, Dave, I haven't nullified any fields of science.  I have nullified the
fallacious argument that is most always directed at the Creation position
that "there is no scientific proof" that creation ever occurred, or a world-
wide flood, etc, etc. (Please notice this argument in subsequent responses to
this thread!)  If people want to apply that standard to the creation
question, they must, to be valid in their argument, apply it also to
evolution.  I never said it was a valid way to prove one or the other.
>
>    In summary, try to look at Bruce's post from a scientific,
> rather than a rhetorical, viewpoint.  His arguments (which are
> not his; he got them from the sources he cites) are persuasive,

Gosh, should I appologize for reading and studying what other men have to
say?  And did the small bibliography I offered at the end of my post only
contain pro-creation books and articles?  Or am I talking to a man who has
done all his own research and never read any arguments for or against a
Creation position?  How did you know that "Bruce's post contains a number
of tired anti-evolution "evidences" that have been destroyed many times
over" if you haven't done some reading yourself?  And how do you know that I
do not now own these arguments as my own?  Small lack of integrity there,
Dave.

But, all in all, thanks for the response and I sincerely will continue my
research and try to post more factual and less insulting articles.

    *Bruce Hogan
    *E. 14416 Alki
    *Spokane, WA  99216
    *509-924-6710