From: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Subject: Re: Deja vu all over again...
Reply-To: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Organization: Citicorp+TTI
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 08:04:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.170155.12428@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew
Lawson) writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.092927@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel
A Ashlock) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug24.151922.5348@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com
(Drew Lawson)
> >writes:
> >> What I was trying to point out here is a logic trap.

Capital.  Then you'll be needing at least an elementary grasp of logic,
won't you?

> >> The "evolution" side of this debate takes the approach of:
> >>     - We will start with the assumption that there is no God, or that
> >>       God is not relevant to the topic at hand.
> [1]      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >  Evolution in fact makes no assumptions about God.
> [2]^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Is it just me, or are [1] from my post and [2] from the above saying
> the same thing?

It's definitely you (although not necessarily "just" you; others may be
similarly dumbfounded by the obvious).

Let's try this VERRRRRY SLOOOOWLY, shall we?  Statement [1] is "We will
[assume] that God is not relevant to the topic."  Statement [2] is
"Evolution makes no assumptions about God."  With me so far?  (I admit
it, I left out the clause that wasn't underlined in [1]; it doesn't make
any difference to the explanation.)

"We will assume that God..." IS NOT THE SAME AS "...makes no assumptions
about God."  Get it?  Starting with an assumption is different from not
making an assumption?  In [1], which you made up, there's an assumption.
 In [2], there is explicitly NO assumption.

Perhaps the source of confusion is the use of negatives?  [1] is a
NEGATIVE assumption; [2] is NO ASSUMPTION AT ALL.  Can you understand
the difference between negative and none?  (And if not, do you have
someone you trust that can help you balance your checkbook?)

Evolutionary theory doesn't "assume God is irrelevant," it simply
doesn't need the concept of God as a part of its explanations.  As was
pointed out eariler (were you paying ANY attention?) the theory of
evolution does not make reference to Elvis, either, but that doesn't
mean that evolutionary theorists "start with the assumption that Elvis
is irrelevant to evolution."  In fact, theorists start out with no
assumptions about anything, then start adding concepts to the theory as
required to explain stuff.  Nothing is added OR dropped just for show;
every part of the theory is there because somebody demonstrated that it
needed to be there or the theory wouldn't match the existing data.  If
God (or Elvis) isn't part of the theory, it's because nobody has ever
presented a convincing SCIENTIFIC argument that He needs to be there;
that's quite different from assuming a priori that He DOESN'T need to be
included.

Do you know how a pair of scissors works?  Could you explain it?  Would
your explanation necessarily make mention of God for any purpose?  If
not, does that mean you "assume God is irrelevant" to the mechanics of a
pair of scissors?  Or did it just work out that you can explain
everything you know about how a pair of scissors works without reference
to God?

> >   "No God" is not a conclusion reached by evolution.  This has been
> >exhaustively discussed here.
> 
> Again, this was my perception of posts in the last month or so.  I
> suppose I was wrong in my reading.  At least now everyone has
> proclaimed that they do not hold this view, so I shouldn't be seeing it
> in future postings.

Sigh.  I'm sure you'll continue to see it under every rock, the way
McCarthyites saw Communists everywhere.  NOBODY in this conversation
(and I've been following it, er, religiously) has said any such thing
(i.e., that evolution concludes that there is no God).  I don't
understand why you insist on reading this into everything, but as your
incomprehension above demonstrates, that's exactly what you do, time and
again without fail.

I think you're well on your way to becoming a Tradition.

---------

A fanatic is someone who does what he knows that God would do if God knew the
facts of the case.

Some mailers apparently munge my address; you might have to use
bsmart@bsmart.tti.com -- or if that fails, fall back to
72027.3210@compuserve.com.  Ain't UNIX grand?
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15273 talk.origins:10279