From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution does not assume there is no God.
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:28:08 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Aug25.095211@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>   Drew is pounding that same tired drum...
>
>In article <1992Aug24.170856.5941@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
>writes:
>> In article <1992Aug21.105154@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
>Ashlock) writes:
>> >In article <1992Aug20.173540.444@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew
>Lawson)
>> >writes:

>> I do not know your dicipline, but I start to wonder about the logic
>> training available at Iowa State.
>
>   I'm a professor of mathematics.  Hardly and training in logic at all.

Then I will try to keep it simple in the future. :-)


>> The point I was presenting was fairly simple.
>> 
>> You assume not(a) and derive a system which depends neither on (a) nor
>> not(a).  The derived system is consistant.  The flaw is that you accept
>> this as a proof for not(a)!
>
>   Stop the logic.  You're reasoning from a flawed premise.
> 
>> The process in fact tells you nothing about the validity of (a), so
>> your conclusion is invalid.
>
>   As a said before (paraphrase) we did not assume (a) or not(a).  This is
>your flawed premise.  Also, you are requiring us to accept a twisted trickster
>as God to reach what you beleive to be a correct conclusion.  Those bones
>ARE there in the earth.  The DO agree with other lines of evidence.  The
>evidence IS compelling to the educated and intellegent.  Trickery or 
>deception?
>
>> In the current example, a system has been derived by ignoring God.
>
>   This is a false statement.  That has been proven here.  Recently.
>Impeach the proof or withdraw the statement.  These demands are not 
>negotiable.

Actually, I had several responses which seemed in the contrary.  I have
no problem with you (used in the general) ignoring God in scientific
work.  The contemporary view is that this is the "right" thing to do.
It is what is done.  The theory of evolution proceeds from the
assumption (implicit) that God is not relevant to the question at hand
(same phrasing as my original post).  This is acceptable (though I
disagree).

Are you stating that ANY attribute about God is integrated into the
theory of evolution?  That is what your protest implies.


Note that all science tends to proceed from the assumption to ignore
God in the process.  The reason that I feel this is inappropriate in
this case (personally I feel it is wrong in all cases == opinion) is
that this is a question of the origin of Man.  I do not feel that I am
the result of random permutations of slime.  (Though my friends might
disagree ;-)


> 
>>  The 
>> system is consistant.  This is taken as evidence that God did not 
>> create the world.  Very sloppy logic.  
> 
>   It is sloppy logic but IT'S A CREATIONIST STRAW MAN NOT A CLAIM MADE BY
>EVOLUTIONARY THEORY.  

BTW, thank you for agreeing, though violently, on my analysis of the
logic that I presented.

I did not mean that the theory of evolution concludes this, but that those
posting on the topic seem to conclude this.


>>>> Since there is chocolate in the world, God obviously intended us all to 
>>>> be fat.  
>>> 
>>>   Okay, then, Einstien, what is the purpose of chocolate?  

>I think chocolate does not have a purpose or involve intent.  

Should I accuse you of sleeze evolutionist trick questions (asking a
question for which you will accept no answer)?


>   Also, with typical creationist vaugeness, you are failing to distinguish 
>between the stimulant and endorphin promoting effects of the raw plant and the 
>fattening effects of the derived candy.  Since chocolate _candy_ is fattening 
>you're probably really discussing sugur while merely appearing to discuss 
>chocolate.  

Excuse me, but is there a chocolate _plant_?  I am familiar with cacao,
but that is all.  (BTW, I considered using maple syrup as the example.)

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15471 talk.origins:10416