From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Atheistic creationism -- a tutorial
Date: 27 Sep 92 00:42:01 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep26.100742.28406@klaava.Helsinki.FI> cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.071853.5636@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>>Ah, the temptation.  Actually, what you are doing is appealing to
>>authority...

>I was afraid of this.
>To rephrase: I'm not so much appealing to authority than.. not
>_claiming_, but having the feeling that your idea ultimately is a
>variant of the conspiracy theory, i.e. despite the obvious inadequacy of
>the evolution theory an awful lot of scientists think it's correct (if
>you don't believe in conspiracy, you're saying they're stupid. While I
>don't have difficulty with the idea of a stupid scientist, I do have
>trouble imagining that all or even most of them being that.)

>Since you're sure to bring this up: sure, scientists have been wrong
>before. However, when presented evidence to the contrary, science has
>changed (though of course individual scientists have clung to old
>theories).

You would have done much better to stick to the appeal to authority
shtick, which I was offering you.  I understand that you are expressing
a feeling rather than making a claim.  Being a kindly sort of chap but
not feeling inclined to write at length I will give you the following
data points:

a)	This is not a conspiracy theory.
b)	I'm not saying that scientists are stupid.

You may take these statements as fact.  Please rethink and restate
your position.

>>In any case, to help you out, evolutionary theory requires...
>>The argument is...

>Isn't this an assertion? Based on.. hmm, gut feeling?

Yes it is an assertion.  Your seond question is simply a snide
comment.  You still have not made any effort to actually address
the original arguments; so far all I have seen are variations on
ad hominem attacks and affirmations of faith.


...

>Let me interrupt: what the hell is 'natural external intervention'?

Anything or anybody that alters the genetic constitution of life.  For
example, aliens doing genetic engineering from time to time, time 
travelers from the future making sure that they evolved, panspermia,
telekinetic resonance with the DNA of life on another world, a
universal maindless creative force, etc, etc, etc.  I will leave it
at that, to give you the chance to make the obvious mistake.

>No, no.. you haven't refuted anything! You've just said, in effect, 'I
>don't believe the mechanisms are adequate'.

This is an important claim on your part.  How do you justify it?  I 
fancied I had been reasonably clear about saying "selection is
inadequate for this reason..." etc.  I don't recall using the word
"believe" or "belief" at all. 

I could readily accept a "that argument doesn't hold water because...".
I haven't gotten that from you.  What I'm hearing is a "You must be
wrong because science is right" profession of faith.  You tell me
that "Evolution is the best theory because it fits the data" and then
admit that you don't really know what the data is.

Do you understand what science is about?
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.