Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [OriginsTalk] Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science, Or Great Science?

Expand Messages
  • Joe Martin
    From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurie Appleton Sent: April-11-13 10:12 PM To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 18, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
      Behalf Of Laurie Appleton
      Sent: April-11-13 10:12 PM
      To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science, Or Great
      Science?






      ----- Original Message -----
      From: David
      To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 6:26 AM
      Subject: [OriginsTalk] Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science, Or Great
      Science?

      EVOLUTION IS AS GOOD AS GREAT SCIENCE GETS!

      LA> Surely you are joking since noted evolutionists have written things like
      the following;

      -------------------------------------

      "Creationists travel all over the United States,
      visiting college campuses (*) and staging "debates" with
      biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
      creationists nearly always win."

      "The audience is frequently loaded with the already
      converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently
      have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what
      awaits them. Thinking the creationists are uneducated,
      Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady
      onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific
      topics."

      "No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the
      relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology,
      geology, and anthropology. Creationists today - at least
      the majority of their spokesmen - are highly educated,
      intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done
      their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed
      than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a
      bewildered state of incoherence."

      (The Monkey Business, Niles Eldredge, 1982, p. 17)
      (*) elsewhere some evolutionists try to pretend that the
      debates are mostly NOT on College campuses!)
      ===========================




      [JM>] Laurie's little snippet IN CONTEXT:


      "Creationism-the belief that the cosmos, the earth, and all of life are the
      separate acts of a supernatural Creator-is most closely associated in the
      United States with various sects of fundamentalist Christianity. Other
      religions (for instance, some Orthodox Jewish sects) also reject the
      scientific
      notion of evolution in favor of a literal biblical rendition of the origins
      of
      the earth and living things. Indeed, the religions of nearly all known
      societies
      have creation myths that explain the origin of the world, who people are,
      how they came to be, and why.

      But creationism is far more than a religious belief. As fascinating as the
      comparative study of creation stories may be, it is the political nature of
      creationism in the United States that gave the topic its importance in 1925,
      as it has once again today. William Jennings Bryan, the sterling symbol of
      grass-roots populism who ran for the presidency three times and once served
      as
      Secretary of State, was the spokesman for fundamentalist beliefs against the
      supposedly godless forces of evolution in the Scopes trial. Long past his
      prime as all orator (he died only three days after the trial
      ended), Bryan nonetheless stirred the hearts of creationists during the
      trial, with his masterful blend of religion and politics. No one (except
      journalist H.
      L. Mencken) objected to the right of a student to believe whatever he or she
      wanted. But the activist side of creationism, which attempts to see
      religious-inspired belief taught in schools (or evolution expunged from the
      curriculum), leaves the arena of religion and enters the world of politics.

      The current rise of creationism can only be understood as a part of the
      general upsurge of "neopopulism." The new conservatism sweeping America-a
      conservatism as much anti-General Motors as it is anti-United Auto
      Workers-opposes big companies, big unions, and big government. It seeks more
      local control of
      tax dollars and the programs those dollars support. The tax revolt and the
      attack on a host of issues (e.g., sex education, abortion, the Equal Rights
      Amendment) are all designed to support what are perceived as traditional
      American family values. The Moral Majority, which is pro creationist and
      anti-evolutionist, is merely the latest, most visible, and most successful
      religious organization (primarily fundamentalist Protestant) to engage in
      overt political
      action. The populist form of conservative politics has always gone hand in
      hand with conservative Protestant religious belief. Small wonder creationism
      is
      once more on the political scene.

      Thus, the central importance of creationism today is its political nature.
      Creationists travel all over the United States, visiting college campuses
      and
      staging "debates" with biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
      creationists nearly always win. The audience is frequently loaded with the
      already converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently, have
      been
      showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what awaits them.
      Thinking the creationists are uneducated, Bible-thumping clods, they are
      soon routed by a steady onslaught of: direct attacks on a wide variety of
      scientific topics. No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the relevant
      points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and anthropology.
      Creationists today-at least the majority of their spokesmen-are highly
      educated, intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done their
      homework. And they nearly always seem better informed than their opponents,
      who
      are reduced too often to a bewildered state of incoherence. As will be all
      too
      evident when we examine the creationist position in detail, their arguments
      are devoid of any real intellectual content. Creationists win debates
      because
      of their canny stage presence, and not through clarity of logic or force of
      evidence. The debates are shows rather than serious considerations of
      evolution.

      The debate tactic reveals the essence of the creationist approach: the
      collision between creation and evolution is still presented as an
      unresolved,
      intellectual problem. When Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859,
      he
      sparked a genuine controversy. Did a naturalistic explanation of the origin
      and development of life on earth pose a serious theological challenge?
      Thomas
      Henry Huxley (Aldous' and Julian's grandfather and Darwin's main champion in
      England) debated Bishop Wilberforce soon after the Origin appeared. But such
      theological problems as evolution seemed to pose were soon resolved; most
      Christian and Jewish thinkers today see no conflict between science and
      religion.
      Science seeks to understand the universe in naturalistic terms. It depends
      upon observation, accepts nothing on faith, and acknowledges that it can
      never
      claim to know the ultimate truth. Religions, on the other hand, are
      belief systems, generally involving the supernatural. Both are
      time-honored-but
      utterly different-human activities. Most scientists and members of religious
      communities see no conflict, as the two systems are completely different,
      are
      pursued for different reasons, and serve different functions."

      (Eldredge N., "The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism,"
      Washington Square: New York NY, 1982, pp.16-18)



      JM> Throws an entirely different light on the subject, doesn't it?





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Laurie Appleton
      ... From: Joe Martin To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 8:38 AM Subject: RE: [OriginsTalk] Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science,
      Message 2 of 7 , Apr 18, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Joe Martin
        To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 8:38 AM
        Subject: RE: [OriginsTalk] Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science, Or Great Science?





        ----- Original Message -----
        From: David
        To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 6:26 AM
        Subject: [OriginsTalk] Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science, Or Great
        Science?

        EVOLUTION IS AS GOOD AS GREAT SCIENCE GETS!

        LA> Surely you are joking since noted evolutionists have written things like
        the following;

        -------------------------------------

        "Creationists travel all over the United States,
        visiting college campuses (*) and staging "debates" with
        biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
        creationists nearly always win."

        "The audience is frequently loaded with the already
        converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently
        have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what
        awaits them. Thinking the creationists are uneducated,
        Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady
        onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific
        topics."

        "No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the
        relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology,
        geology, and anthropology. Creationists today - at least
        the majority of their spokesmen - are highly educated,
        intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done
        their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed
        than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a
        bewildered state of incoherence."

        (The Monkey Business, Niles Eldredge, 1982, p. 17)
        (*) elsewhere some evolutionists try to pretend that the
        debates are mostly NOT on College campuses!)
        ===========================

        [JM>] Laurie's little snippet IN CONTEXT:

        "Creationism-the belief that the cosmos, the earth, and all of life are the
        separate acts of a supernatural Creator-is most closely associated in the
        United States with various sects of fundamentalist Christianity. Other
        religions (for instance, some Orthodox Jewish sects) also reject the
        scientific
        notion of evolution in favor of a literal biblical rendition of the origins
        of
        the earth and living things. Indeed, the religions of nearly all known
        societies
        have creation myths that explain the origin of the world, who people are,
        how they came to be, and why.

        But creationism is far more than a religious belief. As fascinating as the
        comparative study of creation stories may be, it is the political nature of
        creationism in the United States that gave the topic its importance in 1925,
        as it has once again today. William Jennings Bryan, the sterling symbol of
        grass-roots populism who ran for the presidency three times and once served
        as
        Secretary of State, was the spokesman for fundamentalist beliefs against the
        supposedly godless forces of evolution in the Scopes trial. Long past his
        prime as all orator (he died only three days after the trial
        ended), Bryan nonetheless stirred the hearts of creationists during the
        trial, with his masterful blend of religion and politics. No one (except
        journalist H.
        L. Mencken) objected to the right of a student to believe whatever he or she
        wanted. But the activist side of creationism, which attempts to see
        religious-inspired belief taught in schools (or evolution expunged from the
        curriculum), leaves the arena of religion and enters the world of politics.

        The current rise of creationism can only be understood as a part of the
        general upsurge of "neopopulism." The new conservatism sweeping America-a
        conservatism as much anti-General Motors as it is anti-United Auto
        Workers-opposes big companies, big unions, and big government. It seeks more
        local control of
        tax dollars and the programs those dollars support. The tax revolt and the
        attack on a host of issues (e.g., sex education, abortion, the Equal Rights
        Amendment) are all designed to support what are perceived as traditional
        American family values. The Moral Majority, which is pro creationist and
        anti-evolutionist, is merely the latest, most visible, and most successful
        religious organization (primarily fundamentalist Protestant) to engage in
        overt political
        action. The populist form of conservative politics has always gone hand in
        hand with conservative Protestant religious belief. Small wonder creationism
        is
        once more on the political scene.

        Thus, the central importance of creationism today is its political nature.
        Creationists travel all over the United States, visiting college campuses
        and
        staging "debates" with biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
        creationists nearly always win. The audience is frequently loaded with the
        already converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently, have
        been
        showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what awaits them.
        Thinking the creationists are uneducated, Bible-thumping clods, they are
        soon routed by a steady onslaught of: direct attacks on a wide variety of
        scientific topics. No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the relevant
        points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and anthropology.
        Creationists today-at least the majority of their spokesmen-are highly
        educated, intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done their
        homework. And they nearly always seem better informed than their opponents,
        who
        are reduced too often to a bewildered state of incoherence. As will be all
        too
        evident when we examine the creationist position in detail, their arguments
        are devoid of any real intellectual content. Creationists win debates
        because
        of their canny stage presence, and not through clarity of logic or force of
        evidence. The debates are shows rather than serious considerations of
        evolution.

        The debate tactic reveals the essence of the creationist approach: the
        collision between creation and evolution is still presented as an
        unresolved,
        intellectual problem. When Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859,
        he
        sparked a genuine controversy. Did a naturalistic explanation of the origin
        and development of life on earth pose a serious theological challenge?
        Thomas
        Henry Huxley (Aldous' and Julian's grandfather and Darwin's main champion in
        England) debated Bishop Wilberforce soon after the Origin appeared. But such
        theological problems as evolution seemed to pose were soon resolved; most
        Christian and Jewish thinkers today see no conflict between science and
        religion.
        Science seeks to understand the universe in naturalistic terms. It depends
        upon observation, accepts nothing on faith, and acknowledges that it can
        never
        claim to know the ultimate truth. Religions, on the other hand, are
        belief systems, generally involving the supernatural. Both are
        time-honored-but
        utterly different-human activities. Most scientists and members of religious
        communities see no conflict, as the two systems are completely different,
        are
        pursued for different reasons, and serve different functions."

        (Eldredge N., "The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism,"
        Washington Square: New York NY, 1982, pp.16-18)

        JM> Throws an entirely different light on the subject, doesn't it?


        LA> Hardly, since NOTHING alters the fact that evolutionist, Niles Eldredge clearly and expressly admitted that the evolutionists' failure was in their absurd mistake in; "Thinking the creationists are uneducated, Bible-thumping clods"! Tthat is one of the reasons why the evolutionists were "regularly routed" on the scientific questions.

        LA> Thus we learn from other noted evolutionists that evolutionism is really a religion to most evolutionists! The following from a noted evolutionist is a good example of this;
        ----------------------------------

        "It is as a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly
        held, and holds men's minds. . . The modified but still
        characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an
        orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor,
        and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in
        scientific truth."'

        (Marjorie Grene, ENCOUNTER, November 1959, p.49)
        =========================


        Laurie.

        "From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed
        to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate
        creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed.
        (Chandra Wickramasinghe, noted astronomer and ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)
        ..


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Joe Martin
        From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurie Appleton Sent: April-18-13 9:15 PM To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 19, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
          Behalf Of Laurie Appleton
          Sent: April-18-13 9:15 PM
          To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science, Or Great
          Science?






          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Joe Martin
          To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 8:38 AM
          Subject: RE: [OriginsTalk] Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science, Or Great
          Science?

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: David
          To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
          <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 6:26 AM
          Subject: [OriginsTalk] Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science, Or Great
          Science?

          EVOLUTION IS AS GOOD AS GREAT SCIENCE GETS!

          LA> Surely you are joking since noted evolutionists have written things like
          the following;

          -------------------------------------

          "Creationists travel all over the United States,
          visiting college campuses (*) and staging "debates" with
          biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
          creationists nearly always win."

          "The audience is frequently loaded with the already
          converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently
          have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what
          awaits them. Thinking the creationists are uneducated,
          Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady
          onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific
          topics."

          "No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the
          relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology,
          geology, and anthropology. Creationists today - at least
          the majority of their spokesmen - are highly educated,
          intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done
          their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed
          than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a
          bewildered state of incoherence."

          (The Monkey Business, Niles Eldredge, 1982, p. 17)
          (*) elsewhere some evolutionists try to pretend that the
          debates are mostly NOT on College campuses!)
          ===========================

          [JM>] Laurie's little snippet IN CONTEXT:

          "Creationism-the belief that the cosmos, the earth, and all of life are the
          separate acts of a supernatural Creator-is most closely associated in the
          United States with various sects of fundamentalist Christianity. Other
          religions (for instance, some Orthodox Jewish sects) also reject the
          scientific
          notion of evolution in favor of a literal biblical rendition of the origins
          of
          the earth and living things. Indeed, the religions of nearly all known
          societies
          have creation myths that explain the origin of the world, who people are,
          how they came to be, and why.

          But creationism is far more than a religious belief. As fascinating as the
          comparative study of creation stories may be, it is the political nature of
          creationism in the United States that gave the topic its importance in 1925,
          as it has once again today. William Jennings Bryan, the sterling symbol of
          grass-roots populism who ran for the presidency three times and once served
          as
          Secretary of State, was the spokesman for fundamentalist beliefs against the
          supposedly godless forces of evolution in the Scopes trial. Long past his
          prime as all orator (he died only three days after the trial
          ended), Bryan nonetheless stirred the hearts of creationists during the
          trial, with his masterful blend of religion and politics. No one (except
          journalist H.
          L. Mencken) objected to the right of a student to believe whatever he or she
          wanted. But the activist side of creationism, which attempts to see
          religious-inspired belief taught in schools (or evolution expunged from the
          curriculum), leaves the arena of religion and enters the world of politics.

          The current rise of creationism can only be understood as a part of the
          general upsurge of "neopopulism." The new conservatism sweeping America-a
          conservatism as much anti-General Motors as it is anti-United Auto
          Workers-opposes big companies, big unions, and big government. It seeks more
          local control of
          tax dollars and the programs those dollars support. The tax revolt and the
          attack on a host of issues (e.g., sex education, abortion, the Equal Rights
          Amendment) are all designed to support what are perceived as traditional
          American family values. The Moral Majority, which is pro creationist and
          anti-evolutionist, is merely the latest, most visible, and most successful
          religious organization (primarily fundamentalist Protestant) to engage in
          overt political
          action. The populist form of conservative politics has always gone hand in
          hand with conservative Protestant religious belief. Small wonder creationism
          is
          once more on the political scene.

          Thus, the central importance of creationism today is its political nature.
          Creationists travel all over the United States, visiting college campuses
          and
          staging "debates" with biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
          creationists nearly always win. The audience is frequently loaded with the
          already converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently, have
          been
          showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what awaits them.
          Thinking the creationists are uneducated, Bible-thumping clods, they are
          soon routed by a steady onslaught of: direct attacks on a wide variety of
          scientific topics. No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the relevant
          points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and anthropology.
          Creationists today-at least the majority of their spokesmen-are highly
          educated, intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done their
          homework. And they nearly always seem better informed than their opponents,
          who
          are reduced too often to a bewildered state of incoherence. As will be all
          too
          evident when we examine the creationist position in detail, their arguments
          are devoid of any real intellectual content. Creationists win debates
          because
          of their canny stage presence, and not through clarity of logic or force of
          evidence. The debates are shows rather than serious considerations of
          evolution.

          The debate tactic reveals the essence of the creationist approach: the
          collision between creation and evolution is still presented as an
          unresolved,
          intellectual problem. When Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859,
          he
          sparked a genuine controversy. Did a naturalistic explanation of the origin
          and development of life on earth pose a serious theological challenge?
          Thomas
          Henry Huxley (Aldous' and Julian's grandfather and Darwin's main champion in
          England) debated Bishop Wilberforce soon after the Origin appeared. But such
          theological problems as evolution seemed to pose were soon resolved; most
          Christian and Jewish thinkers today see no conflict between science and
          religion.
          Science seeks to understand the universe in naturalistic terms. It depends
          upon observation, accepts nothing on faith, and acknowledges that it can
          never
          claim to know the ultimate truth. Religions, on the other hand, are
          belief systems, generally involving the supernatural. Both are
          time-honored-but
          utterly different-human activities. Most scientists and members of religious
          communities see no conflict, as the two systems are completely different,
          are
          pursued for different reasons, and serve different functions."

          (Eldredge N., "The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism,"
          Washington Square: New York NY, 1982, pp.16-18)

          JM> Throws an entirely different light on the subject, doesn't it?

          LA> Hardly, since NOTHING alters the fact that evolutionist, Niles Eldredge
          clearly and expressly admitted that the evolutionists' failure was in their
          absurd mistake in; "Thinking the creationists are uneducated, Bible-thumping
          clods"! Tthat is one of the reasons why the evolutionists were "regularly
          routed" on the scientific questions.

          [JM>] Perhaps you should READ what E. said... it was not on scientific
          QUESTIONS but " steady onslaught of: direct attacks on a wide variety of
          scientific topics." Perhaps you would be willing to present what creation
          science hypotheses were used to overturn any conventional science theories
          in ANY of these debating games.



          LA> Thus we learn from other noted evolutionists that evolutionism is really
          a religion to most evolutionists! The following from a noted evolutionist is
          a good example of this;
          ----------------------------------

          "It is as a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly
          held, and holds men's minds. . . The modified but still
          characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an
          orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor,
          and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in
          scientific truth."'

          (Marjorie Grene, ENCOUNTER, November 1959, p.49)
          =========================




          [JM>] This snippet has already been shown to not only be Out of Context BUT
          Misquoted as well not to mention over 50 years old. Where is the creation
          science you want taught in classrooms Laurie? Why can't you ever present
          what it is you WANT rather than what it is you DON'T want?



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Laurie Appleton
          ... From: Joe Martin To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:13 AM Subject: RE: [OriginsTalk] Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science,
          Message 4 of 7 , Apr 19, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Joe Martin
            To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:13 AM
            Subject: RE: [OriginsTalk] Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science, Or Great Science?




            [JM>] Perhaps you should READ what E. said... it was not on scientific
            QUESTIONS but " steady onslaught of: direct attacks on a wide variety of
            scientific topics." Perhaps you would be willing to present what creation
            science hypotheses were used to overturn any conventional science theories
            in ANY of these debating games.


            LA> You must have overlooked the following statement in the book of Niles Eldridge. This makes the situation abundantly clear. i.e.;

            --------------------------------

            "No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the
            relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology,
            geology, and anthropology. Creationists today - at least
            the majority of their spokesmen - are highly educated,
            intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done
            their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed
            than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a
            bewildered state of incoherence."

            (The Monkey Business, Niles Eldredge, 1982, p. 17)
            (*) elsewhere some evolutionists try to pretend that the
            debates are mostly NOT on College campuses!)

            =======================



            Laurie.

            "From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed
            to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate
            creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed.
            (Chandra Wickramasinghe, noted astronomer and ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)

            ..


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Joe Martin
            From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurie Appleton Sent: April-19-13 8:08 PM To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
            Message 5 of 7 , Apr 20, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
              Behalf Of Laurie Appleton
              Sent: April-19-13 8:08 PM
              To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science, Or Great
              Science?






              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Joe Martin
              To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:13 AM
              Subject: RE: [OriginsTalk] Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science, Or Great
              Science?

              [JM>] Perhaps you should READ what E. said... it was not on scientific
              QUESTIONS but " steady onslaught of: direct attacks on a wide variety of
              scientific topics." Perhaps you would be willing to present what creation
              science hypotheses were used to overturn any conventional science theories
              in ANY of these debating games.

              LA> You must have overlooked the following statement in the book of Niles
              Eldridge. This makes the situation abundantly clear. i.e.;

              JM> Not overlooked but... let us examine what he IS saying and not what you
              WANT him to be saying...

              "No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the
              relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology,
              geology, and anthropology.

              JM> True.. Most scientists specialise in a discipline (geology, biology,
              astro-physics etc.) and many specialise even further within their
              discipline. e.g. an astro-physicist devoting a career to the gravitational
              effects of massive black holes in galactic centres. So this statement is
              accurate in that most scientists, while having a knowledge of science
              generally, cannot be expected to delve into the details of every facet of
              science. It would not be hard to stump a biologist on detailed questions
              about astro-physics, for example.

              Creationists today - at least
              the majority of their spokesmen - are highly educated,
              intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done
              their homework.

              JM> Yup... their homework for the debates is quite simple really... Debating
              a biologist? Keep the debate fixed on ANYTHING but biology! Geology,
              cosmology, ANYTHING but biology.

              And they nearly always seem better informed
              than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a
              bewildered state of incoherence."



              JM> KEYWORD... SEEM better informed. Not that they ARE better informed
              but they seem better informed because they are attacking geology when facing
              a biologist or cosmology when debating a geologist and, as I said above, it
              would not be hard to stump a biologist on detailed questions about
              astro-physics.

              BUT, this entire snippet, or at least the portion used here is, does not
              give a true picture of what Eldredge is saying. Here it is IN context in
              its entirety AGAIN:


              "Creationism-the belief that the cosmos, the earth, and all of life are the
              separate acts of a supernatural Creator-is most closely associated in the
              United States with various sects of fundamentalist Christianity. Other
              religions (for instance, some Orthodox Jewish sects) also reject the
              scientific
              notion of evolution in favor of a literal biblical rendition of the origins
              of
              the earth and living things. Indeed, the religions of nearly all known
              societies
              have creation myths that explain the origin of the world, who people are,
              how they came to be, and why.

              But creationism is far more than a religious belief. As fascinating as the
              comparative study of creation stories may be, it is the political nature of
              creationism in the United States that gave the topic its importance in 1925,
              as it has once again today. William Jennings Bryan, the sterling symbol of
              grass-roots populism who ran for the presidency three times and once served
              as
              Secretary of State, was the spokesman for fundamentalist beliefs against the
              supposedly godless forces of evolution in the Scopes trial. Long past his
              prime as all orator (he died only three days after the trial
              ended), Bryan nonetheless stirred the hearts of creationists during the
              trial, with his masterful blend of religion and politics. No one (except
              journalist H.
              L. Mencken) objected to the right of a student to believe whatever he or she
              wanted. But the activist side of creationism, which attempts to see
              religious-inspired belief taught in schools (or evolution expunged from the
              curriculum), leaves the arena of religion and enters the world of politics.

              The current rise of creationism can only be understood as a part of the
              general upsurge of "neopopulism." The new conservatism sweeping America-a
              conservatism as much anti-General Motors as it is anti-United Auto
              Workers-opposes big companies, big unions, and big government. It seeks more
              local control of
              tax dollars and the programs those dollars support. The tax revolt and the
              attack on a host of issues (e.g., sex education, abortion, the Equal Rights
              Amendment) are all designed to support what are perceived as traditional
              American family values. The Moral Majority, which is pro creationist and
              anti-evolutionist, is merely the latest, most visible, and most successful
              religious organization (primarily fundamentalist Protestant) to engage in
              overt political
              action. The populist form of conservative politics has always gone hand in
              hand with conservative Protestant religious belief. Small wonder creationism
              is
              once more on the political scene.

              Thus, the central importance of creationism today is its political nature.
              Creationists travel all over the United States, visiting college campuses
              and
              staging "debates" with biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
              creationists nearly always win. The audience is frequently loaded with the
              already converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently, have
              been
              showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what awaits them.
              Thinking the creationists are uneducated, Bible-thumping clods, they are
              soon routed by a steady onslaught of: direct attacks on a wide variety of
              scientific topics. No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the relevant
              points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and anthropology.
              Creationists today-at least the majority of their spokesmen-are highly
              educated, intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done their
              homework. And they nearly always seem better informed than their opponents,
              who
              are reduced too often to a bewildered state of incoherence. As will be all
              too
              evident when we examine the creationist position in detail, their arguments
              are devoid of any real intellectual content. Creationists win debates
              because
              of their canny stage presence, and not through clarity of logic or force of
              evidence. The debates are shows rather than serious considerations of
              evolution.

              The debate tactic reveals the essence of the creationist approach: the
              collision between creation and evolution is still presented as an
              unresolved,
              intellectual problem. When Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859,
              he
              sparked a genuine controversy. Did a naturalistic explanation of the origin
              and development of life on earth pose a serious theological challenge?
              Thomas
              Henry Huxley (Aldous' and Julian's grandfather and Darwin's main champion in
              England) debated Bishop Wilberforce soon after the Origin appeared. But such
              theological problems as evolution seemed to pose were soon resolved; most
              Christian and Jewish thinkers today see no conflict between science and
              religion.
              Science seeks to understand the universe in naturalistic terms. It depends
              upon observation, accepts nothing on faith, and acknowledges that it can
              never
              claim to know the ultimate truth. Religions, on the other hand, are
              belief systems, generally involving the supernatural. Both are
              time-honored-but
              utterly different-human activities. Most scientists and members of religious
              communities see no conflict, as the two systems are completely different,
              are
              pursued for different reasons, and serve different functions."

              (Eldredge N., "The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism,"
              Washington Square: New York NY, 1982, pp.16-18)

              Given the entire passage, the picture is quite different because E.
              addresses the issues I presented from Laurie's snippet and explains that the
              "debates" were "shows rather than serious considerations of evolution."







              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.