From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: Scientific Method
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:12:14 GMT


Chuck's ignorance is showing again.

In article <Bs26H3.GtE@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cmaier@uiuc.edu writes:
>In <1992Jul27.124651.27652@linus.mitre.org> jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes:
>>                What data has been collected in support of creationism.
>>                What observations support creationism?
>
>"The heavens declare the glory of God and the earth sheweth forth his
>handiwork."
>
>"...HIs invisible attributes...his divine nature, his eternal power...
>being understood through that which has been made."
>
>A look out the window by any sane inidividual with reasonable eyesight
>would qualify as a legitimate observation.

Ah, yes, the sickly-sweet smell of bullshit rises to my nose yet
again.  "Life must have been Created, because it exists."  Beautiful.

>>                What experiments have been conducted (especially, what
>>                        experiments have been done, or are possible,
>>                        that can _FALSIFY_ creationism?
>
>Have functional complexity arise without adding intelligence. 

_Functional_ complexity?  Please define this term.  

>>                What hypothesis has been formulated and how can it/they
>>                be tested?

>Molecular biologists might do more work in actually proving (i.e. via
>directed mutagenesis) that it is possible for molecules to evolve through
>genetic mistakes, occurring by pure chance.  

[1] Directed mutagenesis is not pure chance.  Yet again, a fundamental
    miscomprehension of evolution clouds Chuck's argument.

[2] How is this a hypothesis formulated by Creationists?  How does it
    even approach answering the question?

Creationists hypothesize that
>this is not possible for the same reason my note won't change into an 
>pro-evolution diatribe by dancing my hands over the keys in subsequent
>editions and followups to the note.  

Again.  Evolution is not postulated to work this way.  Learn about
evolution before you attack it, you ASS!

>cm.

>>James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@rod.mitre.org


In the past, Chuck has written:

>Andy Peters has relegated the holy institution of monogomaous  marriage to some evolutionary
>happenchance, which may not be universal for humans, and is the subject of some scientific
>debate as to why it came about in the first place.  Of course, Mr. Peters is
>certainly correct, if there were such a thing as evolution.  His assertions
>would certainly be valid.  

Now that you've admitted this, I'm sure you will stop claiming that
evolutionary theory requires that humans be polygamous.

In article <BrsMCD.8rp@news.cso.uiuc.edu> maier@romulus (Chuck Maier) writes:

>On the other hand , if A&E are just a figleaf of our illustration, and
>humans originated from herds of apemen, then it is the natural order of
>things to be polygamous and copulate with anything in heat.

Are you now willing to retract this statement, Chuck?

Are you willing to admit that you don't really understand what evolutionary
theory predicts?

Can we expect you to stop making strawman statements about what
evolution, a concept you do not understand, implies for the faith
of all Christians everywhere?

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Evolution . . . does not support     *
* Program in Evolution,           * atheism, Marxism, or fascism any more *
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * than mathematics is a plank of the    *
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Republican Party" -Dr. Mark Wilson    *
Newsgroups: talk.origins