HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Creation != Evolution Re: Darwin's Enigma
Organization: DSG, Stanford University
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:41:20 GMT

Oh, goody goody! I've been waiting for somone to committ
the following error after reading "Bully for Brontosaurus"
by S. J. Gould. He traces the error of confusing Creation
with some later event, as a way of getting to call some scientist
an atheist in some religiously motivated ad hominem attack, back
to attacks on Hutton. Gould goes on the find the same mistake
in Justice Scalia's dissent on the overturn of the Lousiana
Equal Time Statute.

jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:


>I'm currently reading a book "Darwin's Enigma" by Luther Sunderland.
>On page 11,

>It is not so much a problem of failing to include in 
>textbooks the simply factual statements that there is an alternative
>to evolution theory - which is accepted by the majority of the
>public - that a Supernatural Power created the universe and first
>life.

	The point made by Gould is that Evolutionary theory does not
contest the problem of first cause, whether it is the origin of the
universe or life. This does not means that evolution can have no
bering on abiogenesis or chemical evolution, but rather that these
are not first causes when they fall under the preview of science.

	The religious dissent with Hutton and Darwin had to do with
their theories being lumped with first causes, and thereby being
blasphemous. The defense in those days was that uniformatariaism
and evolution did not dictate the first cause. They have no bering
on ultimate origins. It was, and is, possible for a devout scientist
to accept evolution, the great age of the earth, and uniformatarianism,
without calling into question the ultimate origins posited by their
religious faith. The first items and the second are not to be
confused.

	In the present context, with science able to shed light
on the possibility of abiogenesis and chemical evoluton, as
well as matters of the origin of the solar system and events
back to the origin of our Universe. The question of why these
events occur is open, to which a supernatural origin may
still be applied for ultimate beginnings.

	The problem with the classical defense and Gould's
distinction is not that it can't be made. It is still the case
that Darwin, evolution, even the history of Earth have nothing
to do with ultimate origins, but that there is nothing to
stop people from begging the question, blurring all these
distinctions and asserting that all the events are due to one
ultimate Creation event inspite of what science can say about
them being distinct. It seems to me that this is very much
part of the rhetorical position of Creationists, though men
as ostensabilly educated as Judge Scalia should see right
through this rhetoric.

Bruce Salem
From: jjh00@outs.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Efficacy of Prayer (WAS Re: Does theory of evolution affect belief in God?
Summary: What any historian knows
Keywords: eloi eloi lama sabachtani
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:26:14 GMT
Reply-To: jjh00@OUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Distribution: na
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) cites references
for studies of the effects of prayer on patient recovery:

> Randolph C. Byrd, "Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer
>   in a Coronary Care Unit Population.," Southern Medical Journal,
>   July 1988.
> Gary P. Posner, "God in the CCU?" Free Inquiry vol. 10 no. 2
>   (Spring 1990), pp. 44-45.
> F. Galton, "Statistical Inquiries into the efficacy of prayer,"
>    Fortnightly Review 12:125-135, 1872
> C.R.B. Joyce and R.M.C. Welldon, "The efficacy of prayer: A double-blind
>    clinical trial," Journal of Chronic Disease 18:367-377, 1965.
> P.J. Colipp, "The efficacy of prayer: Triple blind study," Medical Times
>    97:201-204, 1969.

Nice to hear that the age-old problem of prayer's general lack
of efficacy is undergoing statistical, scientific study.

Although "common wisdom" isn't science, the literature of the
last two millenia is filled with troubled explanations of the
obvious fact that prayer isn't a notably successful approach
to solving problems external to the person doing the praying

As Margaret Atwood points out in her recent poem,
"The Loneliness of the Military Historian":


	Believe	me: whole armies have prayed fervently
	to God all night and meant it,
	and been slaughtered anyway.

---
Joel Hanes
From: hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Jim hits a new low.
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:06:15 GMT
Reply-To: hamilton@gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Organization: GM Research Labs, Warren, MI

In article <1992Apr14.133016@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>In article <f5mL02ducazH00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim
>Loucks) writes:
>> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>> 
>> >In article <387s02rJc9fU00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com
>(Jim
>>>Loucks) writes:
>>>> For myself, after hearing Morris' response, I've come to the conclusion
>>>> that Morris didn't communicate his motives well enough for the audience
>>>> to understand what he was trying to say.


What *was* he trying to say? Jim, he and other ICR people have been
caught in so many incidents of this kind, it's quite natural to conclude
the worst. Did he fail to communicate, or did he succeed in deception?

>> 
>> If I were you, I'd be careful not to be guilty of libel. I should
>> probably send this to the ICR and see what their lawyers have to 
>> say about it.
>
How many people will be won to Christ by a lawsuit, Jim? If an interpretation
of the Bible has to be protected by lawsuits, where is the power of God?

Bill Hamilton

please reply to hamilton@gmr.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Hamilton                  |
Staff Research Engineer        |
GM Research Labs           ----+----
Computer Science Dept.         |      Now faith is the assurance of things
GM Research Labs               |      hoped for, the conviction of things
Warren, MI 48090-9055          |      not seen. Heb 11:1
(313) 986 1474                 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TRUTH does not have to be changed to fit emerging facts
- source unknown

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Subject: Re: Great paper
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:15:02 GMT
Summary: null-K

In article <c_xj9bk@lynx.unm.edu>, rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires)
writes:

> a very good point about the importance of
> null hypotheses, correlation, and their importance in evaluating the
> validity of an argument.  Why not write a FAQ on the subject?

One needs, rather, a good book on hypothesis testing and experimental
design.  I'm afraid I don't know the literature and can't recommend one,
but maybe others here can -- Bill Jeffreys recently posted a citation
of one which I suspect is mostly directed at the "hard" sciences.

With regard to biology, the most immediately useful result of thinking
in terms of null hypotheses is to weed out all the "just so" stories
that seem to be so insidiously associated with the notion of natural
selection, at least in the popular mind (and to some extent in lower
level biology books.)  The notion that "evolutionary theory" is about
finding some plausible (so the writer thinks) story about How the
Elephant got his Nose [or whatever the writer wants to explain] is a
persistent and pernicious mistake.  If selective advantages can be
demonstrated, and empirical gradients shown, the "stories" can become
honest science -- but the *usual* think is for people to "explain"
things like "race" "intelligence" (whose very existence as any kind
of coherent "character" for biological study may also need a critical
null to test against) with some preposterous yarn that amounts to an
uncritical validation of a social prejudice that they started out with.

As a good exercise (one rather beyond me, I should say; this really
is the business of a good empirical scientist), one might consider
how to test the several hypotheses about the origins of bipolar sex
that Richard Harter just posted.  In that case, the "stories" are a
lot closer to actual hypotheses that may suggest fruitful experiments
to test them out -- there is a *wide* borderland between fantasy and
useful science, and one has to be well inside the marches before
things take on the character of established fact that corresponds to
popular stereotypes of "science."  Biology is not at all unique in
this -- take a look at some recent discussions in sci.physics on how
the top quark seems to keep receding past the range of whatever the
next hot generation of particle accelerators can reach :-)
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		   "Oh, stand, stand at the window,
					As the tears scald and start;
mls@usl.com			   You shall love your crooked neighbor
standard disclaimer			With your crooked heart."
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Subject: Re: The Historical Jesus 
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 23:27:41 GMT
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)

Why is it that it is ONLY the fundementalists that believe this crap?
(Geez, a dumb question...)  OF COURSE the bible will have a phrase in
it purporting to have been written by a particular person.  Everyone
KNOWS that the history of Sherlock Holmes was written by John Watson,
MD, it says so right there in the book!  [Lest anyone object, this
comment and the one about the authorship of the gospel of John, in the
post quoted, are semantically the same, and equally valid.]

Not even the true biblical scholars at the world leading theological
seminaries believe these ancient fairy tales, only a large number of
people too scared to face up to reality.

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | The most foolish mistake we could possibly
Field Robotics Center,          | make would be to allow the subjected people
Carnegie Mellon University      | to carry arms, history shows that all
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | conquerors who have allowed their subjected
(412) 268-3856                  | peoples to carry arms have prepared their own
                                | fall. Adolph Hitler
The opinions expressed are mine | 
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      |
From: kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Date: 16 Apr 92 03:14:59 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

Well, I trotted over to Pitt and found the fiche. I was a little
disappointed...here I was expecting "The Protocols of the Elders of Darwin"
based on Jim Loucks' description, and it hardly lives up to that.

The first interview was with Colin Paterson, who takes an extremely agnostic
position wrt the fossil record ("Is _Archaeopteryx_ the ancestor of all
birds? Perhaps yea, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the
question."), but who makes it clear that he believes there is evidence 
from both paleontology and embroyology supporting evolution. 

The second interview is with Niles Eldredge. I printed the pages with
questions 1 to 69, and would be interested in knowing just what J.L. thinks
is such "hot" material in this section. Questions 31 to 38 would have gone
more smoothly if Sunderland understood the basics of cladistics, as he gets
really hung up on Eldredge's use of the term "primitive" to describe teeth
as a feature.

Sunderland embarasses himself with the informed reader in the Raup interview
by bringing up the Paluxy "manprints" (question ?) and the Moon dust
argument (question 56). Raup firmly denies (questions 78 to 80) that the
geological column embodies any sort of evolutionary presupposition -- so
much for the circularity of the geological column.

Donald Fisher, in his interview, gave both a specific example of a
transitional sequence (the spinifers) and stated that transitional forms
were known within families and orders, but not between phyla. Note that
Eldredge, in his answer to questions 52 and 53, isn't contradicting that, he
is simply using words differently and pointing out that higher order taxa
don't have objective existance the way species do.
From: alc@netcom.com (Chris Stassen)
Subject: Re: Geologic column (was: "Re: Darwin's Enigma")
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 04:45:20 GMT
Organization: The Lion's Den, San Jose

In article <a6KQ02NJceGr00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> Jim Loucks writes:
[I wrote:]
>> Perhaps you were thinking of "progressive creationism" when you made
>> your reply,

> Forgive me for assuming, I thought theistic evolutionism and
> progressive creationism were synonymous?

Not really -- at least not the form espoused by Cuvier at the
time we're discussing.  "Theistic evolution" (no "ism", please)
would operate over the same time scale and in the same outward
manner as normal evolution (with a possible exception for man).

Cuvier noticed that different "systems" (periods) didn't contain the
same set of creatures.  However, he accepted an age for the earth much
closer to your position than to mine, and would not have accepted any
form of evolution.  (That is, he knew there were different creatures
here or there, but would have laughed at the idea they were related
to each other biologically.)

The column, though assembled in the right order, was not at that
time inspected with sufficient precision to determine that
different creatures appeared at different times *within* periods.
Lacking that information, Cuvier proposed a series of a dozen or
so creative events and catastrophes (to start and end each period,
roughly).

I'm not sure how others would use the term, but that's what I meant
by "progressive creation."  I would say that Cuvier's position,
though quite "liberal" for his time, is far closer to your own
position than it is to mine (which I'd call "theistic evolution").
-- 
Chris Stassen						stassen@alc.com
DISCLAIMER:  My employer's account, but not their opinions.
From: hyde@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Lying (Perish the thought!)
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:52:29 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <2722@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> In article <1992Apr8.141639.4891@ac.dal.ca>, hyde@ac.dal.ca writes:
>> In article <2713@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>  
>  
>> > Unlike a number of the regular crew on talk.origins, I do not use the
>> > word liar loosely.  
>  
>  
>> 	Until you can show me where I have lied we will
>> 	have to assume you do indeed use this word loosely.
>> 	You were challenged to show this yesterday, and since
>> 	then you have posted hundreds of lines, yet you have
>> 	not justified your charge.  Could it be that your
>> 	statement above is not entirely truthful?
> 
> Your repeated statements that there is some rationale for believing that
> the sudden and total change in climate within the arctic circle just sort
> of happened, i.e. no cause of anything near the magnitude of the effect
> needed or anything like that...


	But then, since I don't believe in your idea of an
	instantaneous climate change, I clearly do not "have"
	to believe in a catastrophic cause.  Now, if you were
	to post believable evidence for your case things
	would be different.  But I'm afraid that "Scientists at
	Birds-eye" falls laughably short.


> 
> Despite 25 years of "dumbing down" and/or whatever else is going on in
> our schools, 

	*Your* schools, yankee imperialist.


and despite the rather obvious fact that a PHD degree in your
> particular field 

	Physics, actually.


doesn't seem to mean much of anything at this point in
> time, I am having an impossible time believing that you could actually
> BELIEVE such a thing and are not simply parroting some sort of a party
> line.

	Which party?  


	So you still have not substantiated your "liar" charge.
	If I don't believe in the sudden change, I needn't believe
	in a catastrophic cause.  Seems like your charge is false.
	Care to retract it?


						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@ac.dal.ca or hyde@dalac
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Interesting paper
Keywords: Mammals Taxonomy
Date: 10 Apr 92 02:47:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: news2.1992Apr10.024704.4577
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota

In article <83697@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.UUCP (Chris Colby) writes:

> Of course, the Eve hypothesis is now in the dustbin ... it took a
> molecular population biologist to find the flaws in the study.

I missed that (no surprise, I don't follow the literature).  What
happened?  What's the article?

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: robd@cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: 24 Karat Fundamentalism
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:37:02 CDT


From L. Tun   [ a response!  a palpable response! ]
: I write:
: >Yes, a missing leg miraculously restored would shake the foundations 
: >of knowledge as we know it.
: 
: Why?

Why?  Because our knowledge "as we know it" says that such an occurence
is so unbelieveably improbable.  What's your point?

	[note: if it really did happen, Stephen Hawking would smile quietly
	 to himself, knowing that the leg could just as easily materialized
	 as a whale or a pot of Begonias, and then, wouldn't we be surprised?]

: >However, a story of an eyewitless account
: >of such an incident is good birdcage liner.
: 
: I suppose a witless account would not be much use!
: What if you saw it yourself though?

hmmmn?  Well, that's a toughy.  I saw a film of a man who stuck a needle
into his arm, which then bled, and then he pulled the needle out, and there
was "no puncture wound".  It turned out to be a trick, and now I can do it
myself.  But, I also saw a film of a man who stuck a spike thru his own 
cheeks, and danced around in delight.  He did not bleed, but he really did
pierce his cheeks.  There are more things in heaven and earth.  But if
I was the only person who saw it, I'd probably keep my mouth shut.  If
I saw it with a group of people, I'd investigate.  S'matter of fact, I
have been present several times when "unexplainable" mysteries have
occurred, and they have had three kinds of outcome.  Prosaic explanation,
once the evidence is in.  Insufficient data for a meaningful answer.  And
the last, and weirdest, a powerful desire on the part of the witnesses
to keep it a mystery.  And I, being mostly a easy-goer, am not just a
sci-geek party poop.  I like a good mystery too.  I don't need to 
explain everything.

But, to answer your question [ not really tough, either ]
Simply, if I saw it, I would report what I saw, and then investigate,
and then report the results of my investigation, with maybe a theory,
if I had one.  Try to replicate it.  Try to find other examples.
Reject all eyewitness accounts (read Loftus' book on eyewitness
testimony in court - and how nearly completely useless it can
be).  At first, I would even reject my own eyewitness account,
at least as representing precisely what I thought I saw.

Your turn, Lionel.

rob derrick
: 
: >rob derrick
: 
: Lionel
: --
: Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
: Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: cosc143u@rosie.uh.edu (91F9774)
Subject: Re: button pushing people
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: you've been had (IMHO)
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 23:30:00 GMT

In article <schinder.702671933@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov>, schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov writes...
>In <1992Apr7.180442.25258@gould.encore.com> bseymour@encore.com (Burch Seymour) writes:
> 
> 
>[much deleted]
> 
>>Anyway, my point (and I'm almost done with this babble) is ignore the
>>gibberish fountains. They are using you for entertainment. 
> 
>But this newsgroup is *for* such kinds of entertainment :-)
> 
>More seriously, although what you say might be true for some people
>who publicly espouse crackpot nonsense (I'm not at all sure it's true
>of most of them), it's *not* true of Creationists.  *They* want to use
>state coercion to ram their "science", and, more importantly to them,
>their religious beliefs down the throats of children in public
>schools.  Although most of what happens in this group is Creationists
>displaying their gross ignorance of science and observations, in the
>minds of everyone who responds to them is the real threat that they
>are trying to force such nonsense to be taught in the public schools.
> 
>>Think about it..........
> 
>I'm sure all of the "t.o irregulars" already have, and know what's at
>stake.

I personally have learned a great deal by watching these discussions.

I came to this section and the religion section with few preconceptions and
seeing how both sides behave in an argument and hearing the facts and opinions
presented on both sides I have a much better picture of both what is going on
and what is at stake.  I have come to the view that Creationism is as dangerous
to American scientific thought as Communism was to Soviet genetics.

---
Stephen McLeod
The Eternal Student
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Single Source versus Dispersed Source Evolutionism
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:22:57 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide


Just curious to know which position the experts today in the Theory of Evolution
happen to take:

(a) Some elements randomly combined to produce ONE life unit that was
capable of replicating iteself. All life originates from this unique unit.
[Single Source].

(b) Some elements randomly combined to simultaneously produce a batch of
identical life units. All life originated from one of the units,
and the others died off.
[Select Single Source]

(c) Some elements randomly combined to simultaneously produce a batch of
identical life units. All life originated from a number of the units,
but they all evolved identically.
[Homogenous Multiple Source]

(d) Some elements randomly combined to simultaneously produce a batch of
identical life units. All life originated from a number of the units,
but they all evolved differently arising in a number of different
classifications that (perhaps) still exist.
[Diverse Homogenous Multiple Source]

(e) Some elements randomly combined to simultaneously produce a batch of
different life units. All life originated from a number of the units,
arising in a number of different classifications that (perhaps) still exist.
[Inhomogenous Multiple Source]

(f) Elements randomly combined in a number of different locations around
the world to produce different batches of life units. All life originated from a
number of these units, arising in a number of different classifications that
(perhaps) still exist.
[Inhomogenous Dispersed Multiple Source]

(g) There is no accepted position because nobody has looked into it.
[Source Ignorance]

(h) There is no accepted position because it is impossible to tell
based on the data we have today.
[Source Uncertainty]

(i) There is no accepted position because of unresolved debate.
[Source Unresolved]



Derek.


PS. Is there an option I should have said, that I forgot?
Newsgroups: talk.origins