From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:37:03 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

stassen@alc.com (Chris Stassen) writes:
>It wouldn't be surprising that many scientists may "speak differently"
>to experts than to the general public.  I do it myself.  In a group of
>peers, I often emphasize minor points of disagreement, to the extent of
>completely ignoring a vast body of consensus which surrounds it.  This
>results in my saying things that would sound ridiculous if an "outsider"
>tried to read them at face value.  But it works in the context of the
>crowd that I'm trying to communicate with.

I understand what you're saying Chris, as I too communicate at
different levels with some individuals, depending on what I believe
their understanding of the subject matter is. What I was referring to 
were statements that directly conflict with what is said in public.
This is something I will not do, *I'm* honest with everyone I speak
with, despite what their level of understanding might be.

>How do we tell the difference between "an embarrassing admission which
>would only be made behind closed doors" and "an exaggerated position taken
>for the sake of making a point, which would not be presented in the same
>manner to a lay audience"?  Perhaps we must understand the material to
>the point where we can tell for ourselves when someone is exaggerating.

I concur. Having read some of the transcripts last night, it's 
rather obvious what is being communicated.

>I am more interested in the question of whether the "sort of problem"
>that is "admitted" is somehow problematic for the fossil record in
>general.

I believe it's one of the problematic factors of the fossil record. 

>Both quotations Jim produced are in regard to "index fossils," which
>were in use long before the geological community accepted evolution.
>What gives an "index fossil" its position in the column is *not* the
>assumption of evolution, but rather geologists' experience with the
>position that identical fossils hold in other locations. 

I agree with you here, but the geologists are too subjective with
the data. I believe this is common practice for nearly everyone.
That is, if you're trying to prove a theory or make a point, you're
only going to display evidence that supports your position, this
is natural for humans. But when it comes to searching for the
truth, I'll present both sides are fairly as possible, objectively.

The transcripts mention that the same creatures are assigned 
different names when they are found in different geological
periods. Causing the apparent existence of more species then 
actually existed. Part of this was due to their evolutionary
model that they were using, which made them think that a species
could not have lasted such a long time, or that the species
could have covered such a wide geographic area. I find this
quite interesting.

>These "problems" that the quotations discuss are indeed real -- they
>mean that Eldredge has to find another method of correlation in order
>to test punctuated equilibria, and that Brush wants to carefully use
>every available method to test the ordering of the geologic column.

I concur.

>But they do not lend credence to the creationist charge that the
>geological column is a product of the assumption of evolution.

I don't think Morris was trying to communicate this. I have a question
though: Who validates the geologic column? 

>You mean "other factors" like the fact that we're all godless atheist
>communist scum?  :-/  

Of course not, Chris. I know better with you and others. Have I ever
made such a claim?  What the heck does the :-/ smiley represent? What
I meant by "other factors" is a difficult subject for me to 
communicate effectively in this newsgroup. Rather then accidentally
pushing someones buttons, I decided to lump many factors together
with my statement.

No flame for anyone here, but some evolutionists are godless, while
others are atheists, some may even be communists, or a combination
of the three, who am I to say? Something I will "judge" about
everyone, is that they are scum, not! 

>Talk.origins might have jumped on you a little
>too hard, but what role did the group play in your interpretation
>of Morris' remarks?

The group helped me to realize a few things. That is, I need to be 
careful what I post, be sensitive to other beliefs even though 
this is not reciprocated, that not everyone communicates well - 
myself included, and that some of the ICR material may communicate
something other then it's true intent, and this not purposely.
It helped in other ways too, but my phone is ringing so I gotta 
go...


-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
Newsgroups: talk.origins