From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 2 Sep 92 01:49:09 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <87623@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1285@tecsun1.etl.army.mil>, riggs@descartes (Bill Riggs) writes:
>>	This guy (and quite a few others) has displayed absolutely NO
>>idea of where I'm coming from or what I believe, or why.

(Name calling and insults deleted)
>
>>							  He's set me
>>up as some kind of straw man and started whacking away

(More namecalling deleted)

>>						        - without the
>>slightest effort to take my views seriously. 
>
>Of course not.  Your views are stupid, based on ignoring the evidence.
>
>>	The semantic style is obvious. By referring to me by my last
>>name in the post above, he displays the fact that he does not really
>>respect either my opinions OR my person. Which is fine as far as it
>>goes, as long as we all understand the underlying power relationship
>>here. 
>
>I have the power of mountains--heck, whole continents and oceans full--
>of solid convincing evidence for evolution.  That's the only power game
>I'm interested in.  If you want me to respect you, quit posting gibberish.

	These two sentences speak mountains, but Matt didn't choose to
stop here...

>
>>The problem is not that evolution does not have either facts or logic
>>to support it, but that the proponents of the same have no tolerance
>>for debate.
>
>I have no tolerance for gibbering morons.  There has been no debate--you
>haven't provided a shred of evidence that something is wrong with evolution.
>Just that it doesn't meet your peculiarly chosen requirements.


	What we have here is a failure to communicate...

>
>>	But is creationism bad science ? I am convinced that one can
>>take the exact same set of data that exists now, and by changing the
>>fundamental assumptions on which the theory is based, come up with a
>>different conclusion.
>
>You are CONVINCED.  Whooptie do.  I'm convinced you're an idiot.  Put up
>or shut up.  Anyone can type "I've got a theory that fits the data."  The
>scientific creationists have been singing this gibberish for a century now.
>It's as offkey today as it was then.


	Point of historical fact. Just *when* was enough empirical
data gathered to prove:

	- Abiogenesis ?

	- Natural Selection ?

	- Speciation ?

	- Mutation ?

	- Variations in gene pools ?


	It might help to think about the question before answering.

>
>>	I am really bemused by the statement that I'm an ignorant
>>historian. Since semantics have been thrown my way, I would simply
>>like to point out that the preponderence of evidence for evolution
>>does not lie in any written record (that is, after all, what
>>history is based upon), but on physical evidence/observation and
>>deductive logic. How, then can we justify evolutionary biology as
>>a "historical science". Just because something allegedly happened
>>in the past does not make it history.
>
>As a historian, you're an idiot.  Why should anyone blindly believe a
>written record in the first place, moreso than a fossil?

	That, of course, depends on the credibility of the written
record - a highly speculative matter in the case of Genesis 1. You
might as well ask how the ancient Israelites thought they knew
how the world started, in order to write down Genesis 1. The reason
Genesis 1 is not convincing "as history" is that it isn't based
on a primary source. 


>
>How, in fact, do we claim to know anything about Julius Caesar?  The
>process of acquiring historical knowledge is far more subtle philoso-
>phically than you imply, and by ignoring this in your own pet subject,
>you don't realize what a complete idiot you look like by making such a
>deal about the exact same philosophical questions that arise in evolu-
>tion.  Which is why I say, that as a historian, you're an idiot.

	Actually, I probably understand a bit more about the core issues
than you are giving me credit for. But let's continue...


>
>Our evidence comes from three sources, of different quality.  We have
>artifacts from his day, we have texts that are copies of copies and
>so on, from his day and later, and we have linguistic evidence.  The
>artifacts include coins and statues and buildings.  The copies are
>derived from his own writings and historians of his and later time
>periods.  And his name has survived in a few words: "July" and "Kaiser"
>and "caeserean".  The copies of copies etc are merely _interpreted_,
>if you want to get philosophically accurate, as being representative
>of evidence from 2000 years ago.  Yet few have qualms about this.  Why?
>Because we believe--with good reason--that the past, while different
>than the present, wasn't all *that* different.  And what's that good
>reason?  Because our evidence of human history points to this direction
>over and over again, overwhelmingly so, in a complex web of overlapping
>and supporting evidence.  The archaelogist who finds a building as
>described in a modern copy of an ancient work, with coins from the
>expected time, in a city with a Latin name, can only point to the
>sum, which is far greater than the parts.  And this happens over and
>over again.  There is essentially no dissenting note.  There are no
>particular reasons for believing otherwise.  People were people doing
>people-like things.  Sometimes it's hard as hell to imagine life 2000
>years ago--the Far Side of "what people did before television" factor
>--but this is nothing compared to the overwhelming similarities that
>come at us from *all* the evidence, over and over again

	Using the present actions, attitudes, and beliefs of men to
judge past actions, attitudes, and beliefs is very bad history. One of
our problems in examining ancient (and a good deal of not-so-ancient)
history is that we tend to make false analogies with the present.
We do so because one of the uses of history is as a guide for current
actions. But without the appropriate aim-off, our historical theory
falls wide of the mark, even though there are few critics to challenge
our thinking...at least among our contemporaries, who have the same
"general perspective" as we do. Go find an old translation of Josephus
and look at the accompanying commentary, and I think you'll see what
I mean.

.
>
>So when someone comes at us with his theory that there was no Julius
>Caesar, and that the name was invented as folk etymology for a few
>words in our language, along with the documents to back it up, and
>the mountains of side evidence and secondary documents, and this
>someone can spew out any explanation to agree with his theory, and
>by the way, did you know the world was created 500 years ago? etc--we
>reject him and his theory out of hand.  The past was different, but
>not *that* different.

	That's interesting, because there is a school of biblical 
criticism which maintains that there was no Jesus Christ, despite
the evidence to the contrary. These people claim to be both
scientific, and skeptical. And yet, such theorists indulge
in a marvelous amount of speculation to explain how Christ did not
exist and could not have existed. Most of these guys also manage
to mess around with his name, too.

>
>And it's pretty much the same with evolution.  The primary evidence for
>evolution is copies of copies of copies etc from the past.  Today's
>genes are a rich written record brought down from the past.  And yes,
>there are numerous textual difficulties.  We know that.  What of it?
>Artifacts from the past help to flesh out the record.  And most of all,
>our understanding is based on the exact same kind of network of evidence.
>The past was different, but not *that* different.  Life was life then,
>doing life-like things.  And the overwhelming multitude of overlapping
>and agreeing evidence on this point is why we can call evolution fact.

	
	True students of history get to the point where the data
overwelms them. It all seemed much simpler in high school, when the
textbook said that A was caused by B, and that was all they needed to know.
Yep, there are lots of gaps in the data, and nothing should be thrown
out (at least without good reason), and everything ought to be taken
with a pinch of salt. And all conclusions are tentative.


	Among the theories that I've rejected is that Matt plans all
his postings three moves in advance. I simply no longer believe this
statement, based on the available evidence.



	Bill R.


	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any
government agency."
-- 
Bill R.