NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/origins/16901

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 3.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!tdat!tools3!swf
From: [e-mail] (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Jan 93 23:04:55 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit
Lines: 58

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
[Quoting Rob P.J. Day]
|>
|> Following this was yet another out of context quote, this by G. G. Simpson,

Well, for anybody that knows his history of science, the idea of using
G.G. Simpson as a source to oppose evolution is just plain silly - considering
that he was one of the architects of The New Synthesis (the core of the
modern theory of evolution - a combination of Darwin's ideas with genetics).

|> which deserves careful examination since it demonstrates clearly the
|> lack of scholarship on the part of whoever designed the handout.
|> The statement attributed to Simpson, referenced only as "Science Vol. 45",
|> reads as follows:
|>
|>    "It is inherent in any definition of science that the
|>    statements that can not be checked by observation are not really about
|>    anything ... or at the very least they are not science."
|>
|> Based on this, the handout then concludes that, since neither evolution
|> nor creation were observed, falsifiable or repeatable, "What part
|> of evolution or creation can be considered a science?"

Cheez - I can rip this one up without even checking back to the original sources.
Dr. Simpson said that statements must be susceptible of *checking* by observation,
not that they must be *about* observable things.

The distinction is critical, and is what allows paleontology (and even history)
to have a scientific basis.  As long as there are ways, no matter how indirect,
of *checking* (or verifying) a statement, it is acceptible to science.

|> This approach was, in fact, successful far beyond my expectations,
|> as there was not a single objection to my lack of discussion of evolution
|> during the audience time, and it left me free to use my entire presentation
|> to eviscerate creation science.

 Well, I'm glad to see that university students can still think on occasions.

|>  One report has it that a Catholic biologist in the audience
|> was extremely unimpressed with Taylor and his "evidence," and let him
|> know in no uncertain terms.

Oh dear, I can just imagine how ell it would go over if he tried to claim
that a Catholic bishop was an atheist for accepting evolution!  Catholics
are hardly what one would call a *liberal* denomination.

|> Another rumor was that a small number of
|> Catholics pressed Taylor for his opinion on the link between evolution and
|> Christianity, until he finally admitted that he did not believe the
|> Pope was a Christian, and that the arguments of these Catholics were
|> "just theology."

What!?  You mean he *actually* had the gall to *say* it!

--
[e-mail]            (formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
[e-mail]