From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 11 Nov 92 20:52:32 GMT
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:

> >First point: The known laws of physics possess low information content.
> >Second point: biological organisms possess high information content.
> 
> AHA!  Looks like a modified form of that old bugaboo, the argument
> from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.  Stay tuned for the next
> installment. :)

> >These assertions will be treated in the first installment.
> >
> >By all means don't "hold your breath". We have received so many letters,
> >most of them hostile (as a result of our "politically incorrect"
> >position regarding evolution), that it is taking much of our time to
> >answer them all. If you can obtain the book Mechanistic and
> >Nonmechanistic Science, that would be the best way to understand the
> >argument. (Yes, we are plugging this book. But that's ok, it is a good
> >and important book. Dr. Thompson is not a "crackpot", he is a professional
> >scientist with a long list of published papers, etc....)
> 
> I think any "hostility" you may perceive is due to exasperation many
> here feel towards creationists who have previously posted many many
> articles with low low S/N.  It's not that creationism isn't PC, it's
> that most of the pro-creationist posts we've seen usually indulge in
> bald assertions, faulty understanding of basic scientific principles
> and at times even outright distortion of the evidence.  (Not to
> mention those who say we're all going to hell for our satanic
> evolutionary beliefs!)  When one sees such a post for the nth time,
> one can understandably get torqued by it.  I happen to think that
> hamstringing science with a particular set of religious beliefs is a
> really bad idea.  To date, I have seen nothing that makes me change
> this opinion.
> 

I appreciate your input, but the hostility is real, and it is
irrational. In fact, it borders on wild-eyed religious fanaticism, a
trait the evolutionists generally ascribe to their opponents! I mean,
have you READ some of the responses we are getting? Some of them do not
even appear to be about anything we actually said in any of our posts,
they are just hateful grafitti. That is not science, it is vandalism.

You think that intertwining science with religion is a bad idea, but you
do not give any indication that the issue is closed. That is the proper
scientific attitude. That shows that you know that it is possible for
scientific theories to be mistaken (i.e. they are falsifiable). I in
turn admit that certain sectarian religious tenets may be mistaken. But
I also assert that there is a core of knowledge or methodology in both
science and religion that cannot be abandoned, because it works.

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------