From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Creationist Agenda
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 21 Dec 92  08:43:22

Who: bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales)
ID: <8007@tekig7.pen.tek.com>
 
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my musings / complaints.
I'd like to skip the first part concerning "The probability of
evolution being too improbable," as I do not understand the topic
and probability theory is beyond my my limited brain ability; I
would not know a convincing argument for or against.
 
The second part, however, I can address with vigor (smile!).
I have printed out your article, and read it over a few times. There
is too much for me to re-address, so I'd like to ponder the major
themes. I am limited to 100 lines.
 
DR> The trend I see in Creationists is to assert over and over
DR> again the same old, tired claims.
 
RB> "The claims may be the same, but they are certainly not old
RB> and tired. The creationists' claims are basically that
RB> theories and conclusions about origins should be based on
RB> all of the observed facts and not be restricted to the one
RB> theory that happens to be popular."
 
Perhaps I should have said "old," which they are, and "tiresom,"
as they also are. If the Creationists actually followed the
precepts you assert above, they would be evolutionists, because
all observations demonstrate that evolutionary theory is sound.
IF YOU HAVE A BETTER THEORY, LET'S HEAR IT! You have all but said
in the paragraph I reproduced above, that there is more than one
theory. Please state the other(s). Thank you.
 
DR> Scientists answer these Creationist's claims, correcting them,
DR> again and again and again, [...]
 
RB> "What really happens is that scientists who are evolutionists
RB> answer scientists who are creationists. And if you look at
RB> the answers, you find that either immediately or not before
RB> long, the answer is 'the creationists are wrong because what
RB> they say disagrees with what evolution theorizes.' And since
RB> this certainly does not prove the creationists wrong, the latter
RB> feel perfectly free to continue to state their theories."
 
What actually happens is that scientists who are evolutionists
answer psudo-scientsits who are Creationists. The creationists are
not wrong JUST because what they say disagrees with what evolution
theorizes; they are wrong because what they say disagrees with
observation, applied theory, and applied logic. If only the
Creationists would come up with a theory of Creationism, show us
how it is falsifiable, show us how it fits observation better than
evolutionary theory. . . . THEN they would be scientists.
 
DR> It is my observation that Creationists are not interested in
DR> providing proof, or even evidence, of their claims;
 
RB> "My observation, largely in this group, is the reverse. When a
RB> creationist claims, for example, that perhaps a certain organism
RB> might not be a transional form, that claim will be based on the
RB> observed characteristics of the organism in question. The
RB> evolutionists will respond with the characteristics that cause
RB> them to call it transional. Fair enought. But if the creationist
RB> asks why the evolutionary interpretation of characteristics is
RB> better than his own, the evolutionists usually state that their
RB> position (that the organism is transional) is a fact unless it
RB> can be disproved and that if the creationist disagrees, he is
RB> ignoring the facts. This position ingores the fact that it is up
RB> to the evolutionist to provide positive evidence for his claims
RB> if he wishes them to be believed.
RB> This is just a specific example. Disputes over other claims are
RB> the same. The evolutionist can only establish his case through an
RB> objective defense of his theories, but what is usually offered is
RB> only a recitation of them.
 
I do not see that AT ALL. The issue is Creationists' claims that
evolutionary theory does not soundly meet observation. You accuse
real scientists of playing fast and loose with the evidence to meet
their own unguessed of (or at least unstated by you) agenda. However,
real scientists are defended by the evidence, not by reasserting
their theories and clamping their eyes shut. If observation is counter
theory, the theory changes. I have yet to see evidence that evolutionary
theory is not sound enough to prove it is well established fact.
 
Robert, please tell me why Humans look like the other primates.
Coincidence? Random probability? God has an evil sense of humor?
Hebrew mythology says that Adam copulated with the animals (Lilith
wouldn't have him, and Eve hadn't been constructed yet); is -that-
the much looked-for Creation Theory?
[I have to make a big cut here, because i'm at line 88. There is
one issue I take offence to:]
 
RB> "If you look at some of the organizations against creationism:
RB> [...] ACLU [....]"
 
The ACLU is *=NOT=* against religion! They have fought long and hard
to keep religious freedom for ALL religious groups. They ARE, though,
against religion in public schools. You obfuscate the issue, damnit,
by claiming the ACLU is against creationism. ONLY IN SCHOOL; you may
worship / pray / teach creationism in your homes and churches, as you
please, but not in school. Supreme Court says so. All Americans owe
a great debt to the ACLU. == YOU TOO, ROBERT! ==
Newsgroups: talk.origins