Scientific American & religious discrimination: Part 0 of 1
Stephen Matheson
discussion about the dispute between Forrest Mims, III and Scientific
American over the magazine's retraction of its offer to hire Mims as
the author of one of its most popular columns, "The Amateur Scientist".
It all started innocently enough in a thread on talk.abortion in which
another debater cited Scientific American while apparently laboring
under the assumption that it is a major, important scientific journal.
I then revealed that I had been a subscriber for 6 years but had
ceased subscribing when I discovered that SA practiced religious
discrimination. This stimulated a substantial response and a
rather long discussion, which eventually spilled into talk.origins
and perhaps into other groups as well. Most of the debate focused
on whether SA was justified in its action, and many rejected the
assertion that SA was guilty of religious discrimination.
Well, about 2 weeks ago Forrest Mims phoned me (we've never met
before or since). Mims, who lacks Internet access, had received
a transcript of the proceedings from a colleague. He asked me
if I would post for him a response to those who doubted that SA
practices religious discrimination, and I agreed. His response
is contained in the accompanying post ("part 1 of 1").
Please note that Mr. Mims is happy to respond to questions,
although the only way to directly contact him is via fax.
I will be happy to collect any specific responses, either
posted or sent to me via email, and forward them to Mr. Mims.
Also, please note that neither these posts nor any of mine in
the previous discussion deal with the specifics of what Mr.
Mims believes about the origin of species. Indeed, I do not
know myself, and Mr. Mims and I did not discuss it in our
phone conversation.
Finally, for those who are so inclined, here are some references
containing news reports on the dispute:
"Hire a creationist? A nonbeliever in Darwin? Not at a
proud science journal", New York Times National Edition,
Oct. 24, 1990, p. A18.
"Big bang over belief at Scientific American: creationist
writer charges religious bias", Washington Post, Nov. 1,
1990, p. D1.
"Scientific American drops plans to hire columnist who
believes in creationism", Wall Street Journal New York
Edition, Oct. 22, 1990 (page?); see also letters
to the editor, Nov. 9, 1990.
So, here we go again :-).
--
Steve Matheson Program in Neuroscience University of Arizona
s...@neurobio.arizona.edu
Tero Sand
In article <22qj9u$m...@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> s...@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
> "Scientific American drops plans to hire columnist who
> believes in creationism", Wall Street Journal New York
> Edition, Oct. 22, 1990 (page?); see also letters
> to the editor, Nov. 9, 1990.
To be frank, I don't blame them. Any more than if they had refused to
hire a "flat-earthist". After all, it *is* a science publication.
--
Tero Sand, 2 kyu ! Science is a process of enlarging one's
! ignorance to dizzying heights.
EMail: cus...@cc.helsinki.fi ! - D.C.Lindsay in talk.origins
cus...@cc.helsinki.fi !
Lawrence Foard
>
>containing news reports on the dispute:
>
> "Hire a creationist? A nonbeliever in Darwin? Not at a
> proud science journal", New York Times National Edition,
> Oct. 24, 1990, p. A18.
>
> "Big bang over belief at Scientific American: creationist
> writer charges religious bias", Washington Post, Nov. 1,
> 1990, p. D1.
>
> "Scientific American drops plans to hire columnist who
> believes in creationism", Wall Street Journal New York
> Edition, Oct. 22, 1990 (page?); see also letters
> to the editor, Nov. 9, 1990.
>
>So, here we go again :-).
When the ICR "journal" hires without regard to religious beliefs or
the lack of them I'll worry about scientific american. Religious fanatics
are the first to oppose any rules against discrimination because they
would have to associate with people they don't like. Yet when they are
on the other end of the stick they go crying discrimination.
--
------ Forgive me for I have eaten of beans and believed in irrational .
\ / numbers. . .
\ / . . .
\/ . . . .
Mickey Rowe
In article <CAqI9...@world.std.com> ent...@world.std.com
(Lawrence Foard) writes:
>When the ICR "journal" hires without regard to religious beliefs or
>the lack of them I'll worry about scientific american.
This sort of statement probably unnerves me more than anything any
creationist could ever write. It implies that science is a
religion--a viewpoint that seems to hold sway only amongst
creationists and others that feel that sciences gives their religion
short shrift. IMHO the correct way to try to support SciAm's
treatment of Forrest Mims (and note that I'm not making the case that
this is a "correct" version of events) would be to say that he was not
given the job because of his scientific understanding (or lack
thereof). His religion is (or should have been) irrelevant--provided
he didn't let it cloud his understanding of science.
Mickey Rowe (ro...@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
Lawrence Foard
However legally I see no reason why SA should be treated any differently.
Science like religion is a set of beliefs, it just happens to be a set of
beliefs that can be put to the test and turn out to be correct most of the
time :-) Science is my religion.
But legally believers in science should be intitled to the same priviledges
that believers in religion are. If christian organizations have the right
to hire based on belief, then scientific organizations should have the same
right. If scientific organizations are not permitted to hire based on
belief then neither should christian organizations.
Kevin W Davidson
>
>In article <22qj9u$m...@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> s...@manduca.neurobio.arizona
.
>edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>> "Scientific American drops plans to hire columnist who
>> believes in creationism", Wall Street Journal New York
>> Edition, Oct. 22, 1990 (page?); see also letters
>> to the editor, Nov. 9, 1990.
>
We have to be careful in asking whether the Scientific American is
practicing religious discrimination, or scientific discrimination.
For the Scientific American to hire a creationist would be to lend the
credibility of that organization to pseudo-science.
I once wrote to the state PBS network asking them to cancel their
Astrology program because it taught pseudo-science. The response I
got primarily argued that Astrology was valid because of the credentials
of the show's host, listing the government and academic institutions
he had worked for. I'm sure these organizations don't support Astrology
any more than the Scientific American supports Creation Science.
Nevertheless, the hiring if this individual proved to be an endorsement
to his astrology theories.
We have enough problems with people who are trying to tear down the wall
between church and state and introduce fundamentalist dogma into the
classroom under the guise of science.
Kevin Davidson, Asst. Moderator AmigaZone Vendor Support - PORTAL
<soft-...@cup.portal.com>
SOFT-LOGIK BBS (PCP MOSLO) (314) 894-0057
Andy Peters
: In article <137...@netnews.upenn.edu> ro...@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe) writes:
: >Note Followup.
: >
: >In article <CAqI9...@world.std.com> ent...@world.std.com
: > (Lawrence Foard) writes:
: >
: >>When the ICR "journal" hires without regard to religious beliefs or
: >>the lack of them I'll worry about scientific american.
: >
: >This sort of statement probably unnerves me more than anything any
: >creationist could ever write. It implies that science is a
: >religion--a viewpoint that seems to hold sway only amongst
: >creationists and others that feel that sciences gives their religion
: >short shrift. IMHO the correct way to try to support SciAm's
: >treatment of Forrest Mims (and note that I'm not making the case that
: >this is a "correct" version of events) would be to say that he was not
: >given the job because of his scientific understanding (or lack
: >thereof). His religion is (or should have been) irrelevant--provided
: >he didn't let it cloud his understanding of science.
: However legally I see no reason why SA should be treated any differently.
: Science like religion is a set of beliefs, it just happens to be a set of
: beliefs that can be put to the test and turn out to be correct most of the
: time :-) Science is my religion.
Just because science is based on a necessary presumption about the
nature of reality does not mean it should be classified as a religion.
Religion, by definition (well, _my_ definition, anyway), is an attempt
to explain things using the supernatural. Science, by definition, is
an attempt to explain things by natural processes only. The two
types of system are orthogonal (see Kurt vonRoeschlaub's God &
Evolution FAQ), whereas any set of two religions would probably be far
from orthogonal.
On a practical note, if science and religion were classified together,
there would be no logical basis for keeping creationism out of school
science classes, now, would there?
: But legally believers in science should be intitled to the same priviledges
: that believers in religion are. If christian organizations have the right
: to hire based on belief, then scientific organizations should have the same
: right. If scientific organizations are not permitted to hire based on
: belief then neither should christian organizations.
No, Mickey said it best. Scientific organizations should be allowed
to hire based on the quality of science shown by the hiree.
--
--Andy (adpe...@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu)
"God is a real estate developer / with offices around the nation
They say one day he'll liquidate / his holdings on High
I say it's all speculation." -- Michelle Shocked
Bruce Salem
>this is a "correct" version of events) would be to say that he was not
>given the job because of his scientific understanding (or lack
>thereof). His religion is (or should have been) irrelevant--provided
>he didn't let it cloud his understanding of science.
Mighty big proviso, Micky. Isn't the problem, as we have seen
in this group, is that some lets slip some utterance like "All of
the Bible is True." or "Genesis is substancially correct.", prehaps a
private belief, but made public, sotto voce, and the storm starts?
Someone who does this has alot of explaining to do especially if they
are going to comment on life sciences, and evolution in particular. It
is the conflict between their religious beliefs, which they are entitled
to hold, and to have privacy about, and their public pronouncements which
is the problem, not that someone wishes to convert them to different
beliefs, we all know that is futile in most cases.
If someone came to me and said he was a Seventh Day Adventist, and
said that he wants to write for a magazine about biology, I would have
lots of questions about his knowledge, beliefs and judgement, because of
the obvious conflict of belief systems entailed by the background. I might
conclude that such a conflict involves a weakening of critical skill. This
person would have to do much to convince me that he has good judgement in
matters of science despite his reliigous preference. Such a person is to
be judged on his persuasiveness that the appearent conflict is not a
problem. We can accept Ronald L. Numbers as a reasonable historian of science
studying the Creationist movement, because he has written other works on
the history of science and has done careful research and given citations
that we can check. The fact that he was raised a Seventh Day Adventist and
discusses his background in the introduction of his book "The Creationists"
not only does not prejudice his work, but it may be an asset when it comes
to talking with and explaining the position of principals in the creationist
movement. His representation is persuasive that he is knowledgable and fair.
Nims, and some regulars in this group, who present the same questions
about bias between their religious beliefs and their use of science, have
not resolved the matter. They have not demonstrated that their religion
does not color their science. This was a certral issue I had with Bob Bales.
It may be the problem which SciAm has with Forrest Nims.
Bruce Salem
--
!! Just my opinions, maybe not those of my sponser. !!
Seth J. Bradley
> Nims, and some regulars in this group, who present the same questions
>about bias between their religious beliefs and their use of science, have
>not resolved the matter. They have not demonstrated that their religion
>does not color their science. This was a certral issue I had with Bob Bales.
>It may be the problem which SciAm has with Forrest Nims.
The issue is made far more complex, however, by the nature of the column
Nims was supposed to have written for SciAm. I believe the title was
something like "The Amateur Scientist", a series of do it yourself experiments
for the amateur scientist to perform. Its hard to see much of a conflict
between a creationist outlook and the sort of subject matter one would
expect to see in such a column (as I'm sure that Bob Bales could handle
an electronics column without any problem, despite his beliefs).
I'm not saying I necessarily disagree or agree with SciAm, I just wanted
to add that this particular situation is very complex, which makes it hard
to derive an opinion.
--
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SSD-CT
Internet: sbra...@scic.intel.com UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one. The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare. On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!" -Michael O'Brien
Stephen Matheson
by ent...@world.std.com (Lawrence Foard):
> In article <22qj9u$m...@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
> s...@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
> When the ICR "journal" hires without regard to religious beliefs or
> the lack of them I'll worry about scientific american.
You have pitifully low standards.
> Religious fanatics are the first to oppose any rules against
> discrimination because they would have to associate with people they
> don't like.
You deserve credit for making no obvious attempt to mask your bigotry.
> Yet when they are on the other end of the stick they go
> crying discrimination.
There are, I hope, more intelligent, less ignorant folks than you
who will be able to find some better justification for SA's actions.
Stephen Matheson
by ro...@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe):
> In article <CAqI9...@world.std.com> ent...@world.std.com
> (Lawrence Foard) writes:
>>When the ICR "journal" hires without regard to religious beliefs or
>>the lack of them I'll worry about scientific american.
> This sort of statement probably unnerves me more than anything any
> creationist could ever write. It implies that science is a
> religion--a viewpoint that seems to hold sway only amongst
> creationists and others that feel that sciences gives their religion
> short shrift.
Alas, many of the statements I've seen in debates about the Mims
affair reveal that the "science as religion" viewpoint is far more
widespread than you imply, particularly among scientists.
> IMHO the correct way to try to support SciAm's
> treatment of Forrest Mims (and note that I'm not making the case that
> this is a "correct" version of events) would be to say that he was not
> given the job because of his scientific understanding (or lack
> thereof). His religion is (or should have been) irrelevant--provided
> he didn't let it cloud his understanding of science.
And that's the question: was his religion irrelevant? Perhaps his
actual Christianity was not at issue, but his beliefs clearly were.
Piel was fretting (he said) about the implications of Mr. Mims
holding a position at SA, given his set of beliefs. The decision
was apparently made on the basis of what he believes, and what that
might lead to. I can find no basis for the contention that Mims
was not hired because of his "scientific understanding".
So, was Mr. Mims' religion a factor in his being not hired. My
conclusion: Yes. It was a factor. It was, moreover, the ONLY
factor.
Stephen Matheson
by soft-...@cup.portal.com (Kevin W Davidson):
> We have to be careful in asking whether the Scientific American is
> practicing religious discrimination, or scientific discrimination.
I'm asking whether they practiced religious discrimination, and there
is evidence that they did. I've found no evidence whatsoever that
they practiced "scientific disrimination".
> For the Scientific American to hire a creationist would be to lend the
> credibility of that organization to pseudo-science.
Even if that is true, the implication would remain: SA hires and fires
based on religious beliefs. I find the hysterical hand-wringing about
Mims "lending credibility to pseudo-science" to be not a little
embarrassing.
> I once wrote to the state PBS network asking them to cancel their
> Astrology program because it taught pseudo-science. The response I
> got primarily argued that Astrology was valid because of the credentials
> of the show's host, listing the government and academic institutions
> he had worked for. I'm sure these organizations don't support Astrology
> any more than the Scientific American supports Creation Science.
> Nevertheless, the hiring if this individual proved to be an endorsement
> to his astrology theories.
This example illustrates some interesting reasons why I think
SA's treatment of Mims was intolerable:
1) Silliness and pseudo-science in the media are pervasive.
Even the horror of "government and academic institutions"
being used as "an endorsement" of astrology "theories" is
hardly justification for censorship of such programs or
a ban on hiring people who believe astrology. Your efforts
would, IMO, be better directed toward educating people in
such a way as to be able to evaluate ideas and theories
without being unduly swayed by the "credibility" of the
teachers.
2) Forrest Mims never did a PBS special. He never wrote on
creation science.
3) The significance of Mims' position as author of "The
*Amateur* Scientist" [emphasis mine] is hardly comparable
to that of the PBS astrologer, or to that of Gish, who
is (I think) a former biochemist at (wow!) Berkeley.
> We have enough problems with people who are trying to tear down the wall
> between church and state and introduce fundamentalist dogma into the
> classroom under the guise of science.
This alarmist pronouncement, however true, provides NO justification
for discrimination against those who believe the "fundamentalist
dogma" that you seem to fear so much.
Stephen Matheson
by ent...@world.std.com (Lawrence Foard):
>>In article <CAqI9...@world.std.com> ent...@world.std.com
>> (Lawrence Foard) writes:
>>>When the ICR "journal" hires without regard to religious beliefs or
>>>the lack of them I'll worry about scientific american.
>>This sort of statement probably unnerves me more than anything any
>>creationist could ever write. It implies that science is a
>>religion--a viewpoint that seems to hold sway only amongst
>>creationists and others that feel that sciences gives their religion
>>short shrift. IMHO the correct way to try to support SciAm's
>>treatment of Forrest Mims (and note that I'm not making the case that
>>this is a "correct" version of events) would be to say that he was not
>>given the job because of his scientific understanding (or lack
>>thereof). His religion is (or should have been) irrelevant--provided
>>he didn't let it cloud his understanding of science.
> However legally I see no reason why SA should be treated any differently.
Do you support the right of the NOW to consider only women for its
top posts? If so, why should SA be treated any differently?
And, if SA's actions turned out to be legal, would that make them
right?
> Science like religion is a set of beliefs, it just happens to be a set of
> beliefs that can be put to the test and turn out to be correct most of the
> time :-) Science is my religion.
Your equation of `beliefs' and `assumptions' is pretty scary.
Science is not a religion. Those who have made it one have changed
it into something else.
> But legally believers in science should be intitled to the same priviledges
> that believers in religion are.
Your opinion. Not mine, or (I suspect) that of most scientists I know.
Certainly not that of our legal system.
Bill Anderson
: From article <CAqI9...@world.std.com>,
The justification, I suppose, is that if you're going to write for
a scientific journal, you should believe in science.
This whole episode makes me somewhat queasy, and I'm not sure where
I come down on it, but the previous poster's point was well taken-
it does seem hypocritical (and I'm not accusing you of this) to
insist that a fundamentalist magazine should have the right to
restrict it's staff to born-again Christians, but that a scientific
mag shouldn't be able to exclude those who's views are demonstrably
unscientific.
Bill
u
Larry Margolis
>
>There are, I hope, more intelligent, less ignorant folks than you
>who will be able to find some better justification for SA's actions.
Does Mims (do you) consider "creationism" to be a religious or scientific
belief? I don't think SA would consider anyone's religious beliefs to be
a reason for not hiring them. I *do* think that a science magazine is
justified in not hiring anyone who considers that sort of religious claptrap
to be a *scientific* belief. And I consider it somewhat dishonest to
refer to this is *religious* discrimination if you feel that there's any
substance other than a purely religious belief to "creationism".
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), mar...@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Daniel A Ashlock
s...@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>> We have to be careful in asking whether the Scientific American is
>> practicing religious discrimination, or scientific discrimination.
>
> I'm asking whether they practiced religious discrimination, and there
> is evidence that they did. I've found no evidence whatsoever that
> they practiced "scientific disrimination".
A person denied a job because of a religious belief he holds is not
neccesarilly a victim of religious descrimination. I call your attemtion to
the native American's who were denied jobs as drug councilors because of their
religious practive of taking peyote. They sued and lost. A religious belief
can make one incompetent for a job and no protection should allow one to take a
job in the face of demonstrated incompetence.
Now, let me check Mimm's competence to write Amature Scientist columns.
I've seen a few pieces he's written and they were just fine. They also had
nothing to do with the issues where creationisim rears it's ugly head (they
were electronics projects). Mimm's is in my view a competent technologist. Is
he a scientist? Well, he has accpeted a theory that contracdicts an accepted,
sucessful theory (so far, so good, a number of Nobels went to people out on the
edge). The theory he accepts though has essentially no evidence to support it,
has never been stated in a predictive form, does not have a clear set of
descriptions of the natural history it purpourts to explain, and requires that
thousands of direct observations be in error. This implies that Mimms has
little or no understanding of the content or philosophy of science. A smoking
gun in my view,
>> For the Scientific American to hire a creationist would be to lend the
>> credibility of that organization to pseudo-science.
>
> Even if that is true, the implication would remain: SA hires and fires
> based on religious beliefs. I find the hysterical hand-wringing about
> Mims "lending credibility to pseudo-science" to be not a little
> embarrassing.
No, the implication is SA fires creationists when they find them
contributing to their pages. You have supplied _no_ evidence that SA
discriminates against Christians, or religious people of any sort, only
those that believe pseudoiscientific nonsense who are also writers.
You could make a slippery-slope argument if you want, but I have trouble
buying even that. A religious belief in freedom of movement does not
trump city parking ordinances, for example.
Essentially your argument could be extended to protect the rights of
religiously motivated headhunters. :-p
Bruce Salem
>So, was Mr. Mims' religion a factor in his being not hired. My
>conclusion: Yes. It was a factor. It was, moreover, the ONLY
>factor.
I don't think that you can support the assertion that religion
was the only factor. Nor, does the decision not to hire Mims necessarily
hinge on religious descrimination. At least it could have been a sour
grapes reaction to not being hired on Mims' part, or if Mims' religion
was a factor, it might have figured in the kind of conservative judgement
most hiring managers have to make when there is not too much positive
difference between competing candidates but some negatives, such as lack of
glowing recommendations or aa negative that might figure in later conduct.
Daniel A Ashlock
s...@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
> Do you support the right of the NOW to consider only women for its
> top posts? If so, why should SA be treated any differently?
> And, if SA's actions turned out to be legal, would that make them
> right?
This is a key issue. I would support NOW's right to have a rule
barring men from top posts much as I support the citidel's right to
have only male students. I think that actually barring men from
serving in top posts in NOW would be a poor idea much as I feel judging
Mimm's columns on their merit would have been a better way to go
that what SA did. What SA did to Mimms hurt their reputation and was
counterproductive in some areas. I am agnostic about the value of
scientific solidarity against creationists because it tends to fuel
the view that there is a grand conspiracy inside science. The
creationists can be opposed in detail insetead of en masse.
You still haven't supported the notion that SA practices religious
discrimination. You've only shown that SA apparently fired someone
for holding beliefs contrary to their mission. That these beliefs are religious
is coincidental, at least until you show a pattern of firing
of people for religious beliefs.
Since creationisim is a religious belief asking a person about their
religion is the shortest path to finding out if they are a creationist.
SA's questions, while clearly in poor tase and probably unadvisable from
a liability standpoint do not indicate an anti-religious stance in and of
themselves, but ratheran anti-creationist stance.
Bruce Salem
the little matter of Sci. Am. not hiring Forrest Mims, and I disagree with
you. Now, lets get to the nitty gritty:
In article <231bbo$r...@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> s...@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>This alarmist pronouncement, however true, provides NO justification
>for discrimination against those who believe the "fundamentalist
>dogma" that you seem to fear so much.
Extremisn engenders extremisn, or to prarpharse a famous enigma
from your neck of the woods: Extremism in the defense of liberty is
no vice. The point of this is, what if those Biblical Literalists, Christian
Fundementalists, Right Wing Christians, had some real political power? Would
they honor disagreement with their own views? Would they honor the Bill of
Rights? Do you really think that the Rights of Man, and the right to talk
about heretical ideas like Evolution is basicaly Christian? I argue that
these modern ideas are not basically Christian, and that the conservative
christian churches, if they had substancial political power, would either
sweep asside the Constitution or declaw it. They would probably keep it
as some kind of nationalistic icon, but effectively render its use impotant
if we were stupid enough to let people like Rev. Pat Robinson have real
power.
The founders of this nation wanted in the worst way not to have
the religious wars of the 16th century spread onto this continent. Traditions
of toleration started early in the history of the English colonies and later
survived in the Union so that the devisiveness of religious conflict would
not threaten all the liberties hard won from the traditional power structure
of Europe, which had the support of Established Christian churches. Thus
the avoiding of established churches in the U.S. is basic to our freedoms.
Most of these conservative churches are theocratic in one form
or other, and none of them, if given the chance, would resist the abuse of
power. We should not give them the chance, whether avoiding the appearence
to establish one or more of them, or allowing them to disguize dogma as
another intellectual tradition.
One thing we will have to do is to restrict wealth connected with
churches, especialy if churches of any kind start to meddle in politics
in any serious way. This means examining the tax laws for loopholes which
allow churches to support political causes and not pay taxes on the
assets used for these purposes. Real estate not used for worship or
cherity should be subject to taxes.
asia z lerner
>
> Now, let me check Mimm's competence to write Amature Scientist columns.
>I've seen a few pieces he's written and they were just fine. They also had
>nothing to do with the issues where creationisim rears it's ugly head (they
>were electronics projects). Mimm's is in my view a competent technologist. Is
>he a scientist? Well, he has accpeted a theory that contracdicts an accepted,
>sucessful theory (so far, so good, a number of Nobels went to people out on the
>edge). The theory he accepts though has essentially no evidence to support it,
>has never been stated in a predictive form, does not have a clear set of
>descriptions of the natural history it purpourts to explain, and requires that
>thousands of direct observations be in error. This implies that Mimms has
>little or no understanding of the content or philosophy of science. A smoking
>gun in my view,
>
>
has a fairly witty argument for allowing non-conventional theories to exist,
indeed he argues that they should be invented when non are around. The point is
that a competing theory can chart the problematic areas of a prevalent theory and
accentuate it's weak points. And evolutionists can benefit from that - it has
been obvious to biologists for a while that a range of issues that is either
complacently seen as solved or is shoved aside as non-important is in fact
highly important and nothing like solved. Understanding the weekness of the
evolutionary theory is every bit as important as understanding it's strenth.
Andy Peters
In article <1993Jul27....@midway.uchicago.edu> asia z lerner (azle...@corwin.uchicago.edu) wrote:
This is all well and good. Are you implying that such a
non-conventional theory exists - more specifically, are you implying
that "scientific creationism" is such a theory? If so, please state
the theory.
Are you implying that creationism actually points out any weaknesses
in evolutionary theory that biologists haven't always realized were
there? If so, please give some specific examples.
Please, if you're so well-versed in the philosophy of science, explain
exactly how it is that creationism can be defined as a scientific theory.
Andy Peters
: From article <86...@cup.portal.com>,
: by soft-...@cup.portal.com (Kevin W Davidson):
: > We have to be careful in asking whether the Scientific American is
: > practicing religious discrimination, or scientific discrimination.
: I'm asking whether they practiced religious discrimination, and there
: is evidence that they did. I've found no evidence whatsoever that
: they practiced "scientific disrimination".
Alright, it's about time someone asked a couple of indelicate questions:
Is Mims a creationist?
Did Piel know it?
Is that why Piel didn't hire Mims?
If the answer to the questions is "yes," then there's no question
here. Mims wasn't hired because he holds pseudoscientific beliefs.
Just like someone who believed in a flat earth, or didn't believe in
gravity, wouldn't be hired. His religion had nothing to do with it,
except to whatever extent it affected his pseudoscientific beliefs.
Even if (yeah, right, "if") his religion did lead to his
pseudoscientific beliefs, Piel likely made his decision based not upon
the religion itself, but only upon the pseudoscience.
: > For the Scientific American to hire a creationist would be to lend the
: > credibility of that organization to pseudo-science.
: Even if that is true, the implication would remain: SA hires and fires
: based on religious beliefs. I find the hysterical hand-wringing about
: Mims "lending credibility to pseudo-science" to be not a little
: embarrassing.
Why? Would not Mims' position as a columnist at a respected popular
science magazine lead to an increase in his stature among laypeople?
And would not any pseudoscientific views he held thereby gain
credibility? And would this not cause more damage to the promotion
of real science than any good gained through his column?
The answers to those questions are all matters of opinion, but they
are opinions which don't imply religious discrimination. They are
opinions which would legitimately lead anyone to a decision not to
hire Mims.
: > I once wrote to the state PBS network asking them to cancel their
: > Astrology program because it taught pseudo-science. The response I
: > got primarily argued that Astrology was valid because of the credentials
: > of the show's host, listing the government and academic institutions
: > he had worked for. I'm sure these organizations don't support Astrology
: > any more than the Scientific American supports Creation Science.
: > Nevertheless, the hiring if this individual proved to be an endorsement
: > to his astrology theories.
: This example illustrates some interesting reasons why I think
: SA's treatment of Mims was intolerable:
: 1) Silliness and pseudo-science in the media are pervasive.
: Even the horror of "government and academic institutions"
: being used as "an endorsement" of astrology "theories" is
: hardly justification for censorship of such programs or
: a ban on hiring people who believe astrology.
Wrong. Two points:
Simply because pseudoscience is pervasive in the media doesn't mean
that the rare, conscientious science publication shouldn't do its best
to keep such things out.
The presentation of pseudoscience, such as astrology or creationism,
as science is _fraud_, and _deserves_ to be "censored," just as any
fraud should be.
: > We have enough problems with people who are trying to tear down the wall
: > between church and state and introduce fundamentalist dogma into the
: > classroom under the guise of science.
: This alarmist pronouncement, however true, provides NO justification
: for discrimination against those who believe the "fundamentalist
: dogma" that you seem to fear so much.
Unless that dogma affects their scientific competence. Whether Mims'
dogma would affect his is, again, a matter of opinion. But then,
people are hired and fired based on such opinions of competence all
the time, with no screams of religious discrimination.
: Steve Matheson Program in Neuroscience University of Arizona
: s...@neurobio.arizona.edu
asia z lerner
pretend that such problems do not exist, it does them good to be reminded.
As for the the question of "scientific standing" - it is certainly a trend in modern
philosophy of science to question the validity of such a category. At closer
inspection, it usually becomes impossible to say anything about "scientificity"
exept that each time period hase a list of completely artificial conditions that
become known as "scientificity validator", and are then vigorously denied by the
following period. Newton was considered horribly unsientific for his gravity
theory - and look what happened to it.
And by the way, re Mimms. Nobody can (or tries) to proove that he is in some way
incapable of doing the proposed job. All his detractors claim that he can not
do it because creationism is unscientific. But - if you take empiricism to be the
definer of scientificity, which is what most people seem to have done, than it is a
strange way to proceed. You can not, by your admission, prove that M's creationism
has in any way impaired his scientific abilities. So, your definition of what it is
to be unscientific is in itself entirely unscientific - it has no observable
consequence. From that I deduce that you have a religeous belief in the fact
that creationism prevents people from doing good science. Which, of course, is no
problem in your case, but should certainly not be a guide in that bastion of
scientificity, the Scientific American Journal.
A
A
A
scientificity, the Scientific American Journal.
Jon Livesey
|>
|> Are you aware of recent philosophy of science? Are you aware of Feuerabend? He
|> has a fairly witty argument for allowing non-conventional theories to exist,
|> indeed he argues that they should be invented when non are around. The point is
|> that a competing theory can chart the problematic areas of a prevalent theory and
|> accentuate it's weak points. And evolutionists can benefit from that - it has
|> been obvious to biologists for a while that a range of issues that is either
|> complacently seen as solved or is shoved aside as non-important is in fact
|> highly important and nothing like solved. Understanding the weekness of the
|> evolutionary theory is every bit as important as understanding it's strenth.
Calm down, silly person. No-one is suggesting that Mimms or his
ideas ought to be suppressed, only that if SA don't feel like giving
him a subsidized free ride, they don't have to.
jon.
asia z lerner
And you calm down yourself, O Intelligent One. Nobody, including yourself, ever provedthat Mimms was getting a free ride.
Warren Vonroeschlaub
>Are you aware of recent philosophy of science? Are you aware of Feuerabend? He
>has a fairly witty argument for allowing non-conventional theories to exist,
>indeed he argues that they should be invented when non are around.
I very much doubt he meant one that has absolutely no support, is easily
disproven with information gathered decades ago, and completely assertive
rather than based on evidence.
>The point is
>that a competing theory can chart the problematic areas of a prevalent theory
>accentuate it's weak points.
The point is that Creationism does not adress the weak points of evolution.
It attacks nonexistant strawmen put up as evolution, with bogus reasoning to
boot!
>And evolutionists can benefit from that - it has
>been obvious to biologists for a while that a range of issues that is either
>complacently seen as solved or is shoved aside as non-important is in fact
>highly important and nothing like solved. Understanding the weekness of the
>evolutionary theory is every bit as important as understanding it's strenth.
Absolutely. And that is being done. Consider the gradualism/punk eek
debate. However in this case both sides are well thought out, explain the
evidence (which one does it better is the point of the debate), and make
testable predictions. Creationism doesn't even come close.
This is like saying you're pointing out weaknesses in math by claiming that
nobody can count the reals so they don't exist.
--
Jon Livesey
>
> in some way incapable of doing the proposed job. All his detractors
> claim that he can not do it because creationism is unscientific.
Straw man. Some of Mimms' detractors have stated in words of one
syllable right here in the past few days that he may well be capable
of doing the job. I was one of them.
However, SA is a business, and they are entitled to decided who they
hire and fire, within certain legal limits, and this does not breech
those limits.
jon.
Bill Conner
: Extremisn engenders extremisn, or to prarpharse a famous enigma
: Bruce Salem
I'm not sure your characterization of conservative Christianity is
either fair or accurate. Granted, your view is the popular one among
the intellectually hip, but to the extent that honesty is important it
should be amended. Consider that conservative Christians rail against
the -consequences- of opposing points of view, not the expression of
those points of view; they are, for the most part, as concerned about
the civil liberties of the average citizen as anyone else.
If you are very well informed about the recent -secular- studies that
show the social and psychological affects of the various "expressions"
that have become protected by law, you must know that there is merit
to the conservative Christian objections to socially destructive
"freedoms". There is also the more basic point that society has the
right and the duty to protect itself from what it perceives to be
dangerous and like it or not, that entails some form of censorship. If
there are no controls, no limits to behavior, then there is no society
in any conventional sense, just an amorphous mass of people living in
the same area.
One of the primary functions of any religion is to help define the
standards of the society it operates in, suppress that and there is no
basis for moral conduct and society disintegrates. Those who find that
desirable are naive in the extreme, believing human nature to be
fundamentally benign and capable of significantly improving itself.
There is no historical warrant for their optimizism.
Your objection to churches not paying taxes, ignores the purpose of a
church. If a church uses the proceeds of charitable giving (which is
exempt from taxation) to extend charity to the unfortunate, it becomes
in effect, an agent for those who made the original gift. If the
church increases the charitable contributions through investment, it
has gone beyond being a mere broker to being a source of charity itself.
Taxing the churches has the sole effect of reducing their
effectiveness as charitable institutions. While it may appear that
this kind of secular control is "fair", it is actually a disincentive
to charitable giving since it becomes less effective.
While it may seem churches enjoy an unfair advantage over other
institutions, consider that a churches purpose is unique and cannot be
fulfilled by any existing secular entity. It's also a mistake to
condemn the political orientation of churches as an incursion into an
entirely secular arena; anything that affects the welfare of mankind
at large is within the province of the churches. The only argument
that's left then, is that you disapprove of churches and/or the
religion they are founded on and this is what most such objections
amount to.
Bill
Andy Peters
[...]
: >This is all well and good. Are you implying that such a
: >non-conventional theory exists - more specifically, are you implying
: >that "scientific creationism" is such a theory? If so, please state
: >the theory.
: >
: >Are you implying that creationism actually points out any weaknesses
: >in evolutionary theory that biologists haven't always realized were
: >there? If so, please give some specific examples.
: >
: >Please, if you're so well-versed in the philosophy of science, explain
: >exactly how it is that creationism can be defined as a scientific theory.
: >
: >
: Intelligent creationists spend about 50% of their time on pointing out the problems with evolutionary theory. By the way, there are plenty of biologists that like to
: pretend that such problems do not exist, it does them good to be reminded.
You seem to have missed a bit of my post. I requested that you give
some specific examples of these "problems with evolutionary theory"
that "intelligent creationists" point out. Merely claiming that they
have done so doesn't make it so. All of the creationists with whom I
have interacted, or whose writings I've read - and there have been a
lot of them - have based their entire argument on _incorrect_
assumptions about what evolutionary theory says. They've constructed
strawmen and torn them down.
Give specific instances in which creationists have pointed out real
problems with evolutionary theory, or retract your statement.
: As for the the question of "scientific standing" - it is certainly a trend in modern
: philosophy of science to question the validity of such a category. At closer
: inspection, it usually becomes impossible to say anything about "scientificity"
: exept that each time period hase a list of completely artificial conditions that
: become known as "scientificity validator", and are then vigorously denied by the
: following period. Newton was considered horribly unsientific for his gravity
: theory - and look what happened to it.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part above where you answered the
question I asked - how do you justify your implied validation of
creationism as a scientific theory?
And as for definitions of "scientificity," you can babble all you want
about "artificial conditions" and the like - any set of beliefs which
appeals explicitly to a supernatural entity as the main force in a
process, isn't scientific.
: And by the way, re Mimms. Nobody can (or tries) to proove that he is in some way
: incapable of doing the proposed job. All his detractors claim that he can not
: do it because creationism is unscientific. But - if you take empiricism to be the
: definer of scientificity, which is what most people seem to have done, than it is a
: strange way to proceed.
Oh, what silliness. Mims wasn't being hired as a scientific
experiment. Creationism is anti-scientific. Mims is a creationist.
A scientific publication has every right not to hire someone its
management has reason to believe holds anti-scientific beliefs.
--
Jon Livesey
|> In article <234a1v$1...@fido.asd.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >In article <1993Jul27....@midway.uchicago.edu>, azle...@corwin.uchicago.edu (asia z lerner) writes:
|> >|>
|> >|> Are you aware of recent philosophy of science? Are you aware of Feuerabend? He
|> >|> has a fairly witty argument for allowing non-conventional theories to exist,
|> >|> indeed he argues that they should be invented when non are around. The point is
|> >|> that a competing theory can chart the problematic areas of a prevalent theory and
|> >|> accentuate it's weak points. And evolutionists can benefit from that - it has
|> >|> been obvious to biologists for a while that a range of issues that is either
|> >|> complacently seen as solved or is shoved aside as non-important is in fact
|> >|> highly important and nothing like solved. Understanding the weekness of the
|> >|> evolutionary theory is every bit as important as understanding it's strenth.
|> >
|> >Calm down, silly person. No-one is suggesting that Mimms or his
|> >ideas ought to be suppressed, only that if SA don't feel like giving
|> >him a subsidized free ride, they don't have to.
|>
|> ever provedthat Mimms was getting a free ride.
If SA *has* to give him a job, that's exactly what he's getting.
But tell me, do you really not see the difference between allowing
Mimms to propogate his ideas, and giving him a staff position which
he might use for that purpose. If you really don't see the difference,
it might explain why you are off on this tangent.
jon.
Jon Livesey
>
> I'm not sure your characterization of conservative Christianity is
> either fair or accurate. Granted, your view is the popular one among
> the intellectually hip, but to the extent that honesty is important it
> should be amended. Consider that conservative Christians rail against
> the -consequences- of opposing points of view, not the expression of
> those points of view; they are, for the most part, as concerned about
> the civil liberties of the average citizen as anyone else.
Really? Is that why Conservative Christians want to censor TV
networks, deny Gays access to the Courts, enforce Creationism
teaching in schools, censor schoolbooks and Public Libraries,
ban Yoga classes, censor football uniforms with "Satanic" logos,
and why evangelists hold up the Bible and declaim "This is the
Constitution of the United States".
Because they are "as concerned about the civil liberties of the
average citizen as anyone else?" Pull the other leg, Bill.
jon.
Carl Fink
B>I'm not sure your characterization of conservative Christianity is
>either fair or accurate. Granted, your view is the popular one among
>the intellectually hip, but to the extent that honesty is important it
>should be amended. Consider that conservative Christians rail against
>the -consequences- of opposing points of view, not the expression of
>those points of view; they are, for the most part, as concerned about
>the civil liberties of the average citizen as anyone else.
Not the same Christians I'm thinking of. "Conservative Christians"
are, right now, trying to get a book removed from a library because
it has "Satanic" elements. How do they know it's Satanic? Well, the
illustrations have a lot of red, black, and silver in them, and those
are Satanic colors. Also, one character wears a hooded robe, so it's
obviously Satanic, right?
B>If you are very well informed about the recent -secular- studies that
>show the social and psychological affects of the various "expressions"
>that have become protected by law, you must know that there is merit
>to the conservative Christian objections to socially destructive
>"freedoms".
You had better be able to support that. Or at least define what
you mean by "expressions" -- all you've done above is make very vague
accusations.
Big huge chunks deleted, above, and talk.abortion removed from the
Newsgroups line.
Carl
--
"Ignorant?! Ha! I don't even know the meaning of the word!"
"Fight-Man", Evan Dorkin
Carl Fink ca...@panix.com CFINK (NVN)
Stephen Matheson
by adpe...@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters):
> In article <231bbo$r...@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
> Stephen Matheson (s...@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu) wrote:
> : From article <86...@cup.portal.com>,
> : by soft-...@cup.portal.com (Kevin W Davidson):
> : > We have to be careful in asking whether the Scientific American is
> : > practicing religious discrimination, or scientific discrimination.
> : I'm asking whether they practiced religious discrimination, and there
> : is evidence that they did. I've found no evidence whatsoever that
> : they practiced "scientific disrimination".
> Alright, it's about time someone asked a couple of indelicate questions:
> Is Mims a creationist?
Now that is indeed indelicate. A scientist might ask, "What does
Forrest Mims believe, and why?" Your question is not a question at
all. It's an inquisition.
> Did Piel know it?
Yes. But how did he find out?
> Is that why Piel didn't hire Mims?
Of course.
> If the answer to the questions is "yes," then there's no question
> here. Mims wasn't hired because he holds pseudoscientific beliefs.
> Just like someone who believed in a flat earth, or didn't believe in
> gravity, wouldn't be hired. His religion had nothing to do with it,
> except to whatever extent it affected his pseudoscientific beliefs.
His hiring decision was based solely on beliefs that have nothing
to do with his ability to do his job.
> Even if (yeah, right, "if") his religion did lead to his
> pseudoscientific beliefs, Piel likely made his decision based not upon
> the religion itself, but only upon the pseudoscience.
Uh huh. And, of course, opposing abortion is "pseudoscience". Does
his being asked about abortion give you no pause? Has ANYONE around
here considered the evidence that Mims presented? Why won't anyone
address it?
> : > For the Scientific American to hire a creationist would be to lend the
> : > credibility of that organization to pseudo-science.
> : Even if that is true, the implication would remain: SA hires and fires
> : based on religious beliefs. I find the hysterical hand-wringing about
> : Mims "lending credibility to pseudo-science" to be not a little
> : embarrassing.
> Why?
Because it's ludicrously overstated. Mims would have been the
author of "The Amateur Scientist" (now *there's* an impressive
credential). The amount of "credibility" that he could lend to
Creationism is piddling.
> Would not Mims' position as a columnist at a respected popular
> science magazine lead to an increase in his stature among laypeople?
What do you think? That there are all sorts of "laypeople" out
there reading various publications, wrestling mightily with that
all-important question "Do I believe in evolution?", and all of
a sudden they find out that the author of a column called, for
crying out loud, "The AMATEUR Scientist", is someone who doubts
the Darwinian Theory of Evolution (hats off, a moment of silence,
thank you), and...
BINGO!!!! THAT'S IT!!!! IT JUST *CAN'T BE TRUE!!!!
Hysterical hand-wringing. Hardly scientific. Embarrassing.
Dangerous.
> And would not any pseudoscientific views he held thereby gain
> credibility?
If credibility is so easily gained, then its influence must
certainly have long since been infinitely diluted.
> And would this not cause more damage to the promotion
> of real science than any good gained through his column?
Nope.
> The answers to those questions are all matters of opinion, but they
> are opinions which don't imply religious discrimination. They are
> opinions which would legitimately lead anyone to a decision not to
> hire Mims.
After asking him about... well, you can read it yourself.
> : > I once wrote to the state PBS network asking them to cancel their
> : > Astrology program because it taught pseudo-science. The response I
> : > got primarily argued that Astrology was valid because of the credentials
> : > of the show's host, listing the government and academic institutions
> : > he had worked for. I'm sure these organizations don't support Astrology
> : > any more than the Scientific American supports Creation Science.
> : > Nevertheless, the hiring if this individual proved to be an endorsement
> : > to his astrology theories.
> : This example illustrates some interesting reasons why I think
> : SA's treatment of Mims was intolerable:
> : 1) Silliness and pseudo-science in the media are pervasive.
> : Even the horror of "government and academic institutions"
> : being used as "an endorsement" of astrology "theories" is
> : hardly justification for censorship of such programs or
> : a ban on hiring people who believe astrology.
> Wrong. Two points:
> Simply because pseudoscience is pervasive in the media doesn't mean
> that the rare, conscientious science publication shouldn't do its best
> to keep such things out.
Ah, now this is an important point. They had NO NEED to "keep such
things out". Forrest Mims has NEVER written on the subject of
evolution. His column, "The Amateur Scientist", need never have
dealt with the subject.
> The presentation of pseudoscience, such as astrology or creationism,
> as science is _fraud_, and _deserves_ to be "censored," just as any
> fraud should be.
First of all, your advocacy of censorship is downright scary.
Second of all, there was NEVER any "presentation of pseudoscience" by
Forrest Mims.
> : > We have enough problems with people who are trying to tear down the wall
> : > between church and state and introduce fundamentalist dogma into the
> : > classroom under the guise of science.
> : This alarmist pronouncement, however true, provides NO justification
> : for discrimination against those who believe the "fundamentalist
> : dogma" that you seem to fear so much.
> Unless that dogma affects their scientific competence. Whether Mims'
> dogma would affect his is, again, a matter of opinion.
Whether such considerations entered into the decision by SA, is, by
all accounts, NOT a matter of opinion. It is a matter of record.
They didn't.
--
asia z lerner
>In article <1993Jul27....@midway.uchicago.edu> azle...@amber.uchicago.edu writes:
>>Are you aware of recent philosophy of science? Are you aware of Feuerabend? He
>>has a fairly witty argument for allowing non-conventional theories to exist,
>>indeed he argues that they should be invented when non are around.
>
> I very much doubt he meant one that has absolutely no support, is easily
>disproven with information gathered decades ago, and completely assertive
>rather than based on evidence.
>
>
> The point is that Creationism does not adress the weak points of evolution.
>It attacks nonexistant strawmen put up as evolution, with bogus reasoning to
>boot!
>
>
"Bogus Reasoning" is harder to differentiate from "Real Reasoning" than you think.
Philosophers of science have been struggling with it for a century and a half,
and the result is zilch.
By the way, I had a third point - that you should hold yourself to the same
standard of scientificity you propose for others. If you assume the connection
"Mim's creationist views make him unscientific", in order to make this
statement a scientific (empirical) statement you will have to show that it has
observable results, i. e. Mim does bad science.
Otherwise it is a metaphisical, and not an empirical statement, a matter of belief.
Christians believe in divinity of Jesus, Jews believe in the ten commandments, you
believe in connection between creationism and bad science. As scientists, you and
SA ought not to act on beliefs of that kind.
>
>--
Mickey Rowe
>Intelligent creationists
I confess a big part of me wants to say that that's an oxymoron, but I
guess that would be a bit gratuitous (and *slightly* unfair).
>spend about 50% of their time on pointing out the problems with
>evolutionary theory. By the way, there are plenty of biologists that
>like to pretend that such problems do not exist, it does them good to
>be reminded.
Since "there are plenty of biologists...", I'm sure that you can name
a few, and tell us what some of the problems are of which they need to
be reminded. Thanks.
>And by the way, re Mimms. Nobody can (or tries) to proove that he is in some way
>incapable of doing the proposed job. All his detractors claim that he can not
>do it because creationism is unscientific.
If you'd been paying attention to what was written only today, you'd
know that your last statement is false. Some of the people in this
forum are arguing that creationism is *anti*scientific.
>But - if you take empiricism to be the definer of scientificity,
>which is what most people seem to have done, than it is a strange way
>to proceed. You can not, by your admission, prove that M's creationism
>has in any way impaired his scientific abilities.
By what admission? It seems to me that we most certainly can (and
once again, I'm not saying that SciAm did) demonstrate that
creationism has distorted M's scientific abilities. If his thinking
is at variance with the results of empirical research, then indeed his
"scientific abilities" are impaired.
>scientificity, the Scientific American Journal.
Scientific American is a magazine, not a journal. That's an important
distinction.
Mickey Rowe (ro...@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
Brett J. Vickers
>Ah, now this is an important point. They had NO NEED to "keep such
>things out". Forrest Mims has NEVER written on the subject of
>evolution. His column, "The Amateur Scientist", need never have
>dealt with the subject.
In the paragraph above, you have evinced reason enough not to hire
Mims. If Mims is closed to writing about the topic of evolution, the
unifying theory of biology, then Scientific American had every right
not to hire him. It is exceedingly appropriate that topics relating
to evolution appear in the Amateur Scientist column. As was mentioned
the last time this topic came up here, genetic algorithms, artificial
life, and biological self-organization are examples of areas in which
practical applications of evolutionary theory can be realized. Mims'
creationism would rule out the discussion of such topics in the
column. Scientific American would be better off hiring someone whose
pseudoscientific beliefs do not limit the range of scientific topics
he or she is able to present.
--
Brett J. Vickers
bvic...@ics.uci.edu
Jon Livesey
>
> His hiring decision was based solely on beliefs that have nothing
> to do with his ability to do his job.
In the first place, this is an assertion of yours, that the
hiring decision was based *solely* on belief.
Secondly, an employer is under no obligation to prove that
you are incapable of doing a job. I've seen cases where
people were denied jobs simply because potential colleagues or
managers didn't want to work with them.
Thirdly, it's not necessarily the case that Mimm's supposed
beliefs have "nothing to do with" his ability to do the job.
Over and over in talk.origins we've had Creationists claim
to be able to blow evolutionary theories away, only to find
out that, first, they don't understand the first thing about
evolution, but instead are experts in a bogus caricature of
evolution with which they seem to have been brainwashed. And
second, even after careful explanation, they still prove
incapable of understanding because they are committed to a
world-view in which "God can do anything" and their reading
of Scripture somehow outweighs mere physical evidence.
It would be nice if a belief in Creationism were orthogonal
to ability to do Science, but, at least from the postings
I have read, it does not appear to be so. It appears that
for some people adopting a Creationist world-view implies
adopting some basic assumptions that make Science more or
less irrelevant.
jon.
Bruce Salem
>Consider that conservative Christians rail against
>the -consequences- of opposing points of view, not the expression of
>those points of view; they are, for the most part, as concerned about
>the civil liberties of the average citizen as anyone else.
Of course, when they are on the outs they seek the protection
for a minority, or at least unpowerful faction, but what if they got
power. Then what? I'll tell you what! Civil Literties would go out the
window in favor of Dogma, that's what. The history of the West for the
past two Millenia under Christianity is much more one of tyranny under
theocracy than of toleration and freedom under the _Natural_ Rights of
Man, the universal legacy of all men, of Mankind the species, not of
what diety you worship.
>There is also the more basic point that society has the
>right and the duty to protect itself from what it perceives to be
>dangerous and like it or not, that entails some form of censorship. If
>there are no controls, no limits to behavior, then there is no society
>in any conventional sense, just an amorphous mass of people living in
>the same area.
But, that is my argument. If certian religions wish to circumvent
the seperation of church and state, to set themselves as somehow "Established",
by some kind of deception or subtrafuge (Such as representing Creationism as
a science), then they must be censored. In point of fact, such a tactic
might trigger a reliigous war of sorts as one sect gains inordinate clout,
the other contendors, all of them somewhat like it, would wage a political
compaign that might become violent and would make the Jim Bakker scandel
look like a friendly argument.
>One of the primary functions of any religion is to help define the
>standards of the society it operates in, suppress that and there is no
>basis for moral conduct and society disintegrates.
Thank you, I was waiting for someone to make this assertion. I
think that it is false, and you have not supported it.
I view the historical role of religion rather differently than
you do. I do not think that moral authority or guidence really controls
how people act, but that real necessities do. Nor do I think that moral
systems reflect the current state or desteny of society. They reflect
the way soceities view themselves and the excuses they give themselves
for the exercise of power. Religion serves the need for people who have
no power to feel comfortable about their place. It reassures all of us
that their is a justification for our condition, no matter how false
that reassurance really is, and it give the powerful the means to
justify their use, and often abuse of power, and to openly violate the
moral system they are supposedly maintaining.
One more thing religion has historically done is to give one
soceity the justification to practice genocide on its neighbors and to
colonize societies very different from its own. Even more so, slight
differences in belief have been, and are today being used, to wage the
worst form of military aggerssion.
Moral systems do not reflect reality unless they are formulated
within a stable and unchanging society. They are not the source, but
the result of more fundemental social processes. More often than not
the moralists are the reactionaries and the conservatives who are
trying to maintain the tradition against change. Change occurs inspite
of the tradition. The inclinations of people to obey the tradition
in time of change has more to do with realities such as technical and
political change, and with economic forces, than with moral precidents.
The rise of family planning and the change of the role of
women is a direct role of technical and economic forces wagging the
tail of the dog, the dog being the long-time social role of women,
such as is portrayed in the Bible and much of Christian history, and
still in much of the world. The traditionalists would have us believe
that the changes are due to evil and decadance in our world, prehaps
pointing to the deprevities of Imperial Rome, but such is not the
case. The invention of medicine, of birth control methods, and lately,
of drugs that make things like surgical abortions less important, are
technical changes that free woman's bodies from unwanted or forced
childbearing, but more important is the economic changes brought about
by the Industrial Revolution which made it economically possible for
couples to make family size decisions and for women to have value
as other than mothers and housekeepers. The so-called Sexual Revolution
is one phase of this playing itself out. It reflects the greater freedom
the sexes have in pursuing life patterns other than the traditional
ones. Here too, economic forces are at play. A mobil workforce with
farflung affiliations alters fundemental decisions about seeking
a stable life, about when, or if, to start a family, and about the
importance of relationships.
I am not arguing that there are no moral absolutes, or better,
universals, and what there are have more to do with the evolution of
human behavior out of animal behavior, but that people have the freedom
to obey or not obey moral prescriptions. Their tendancy to not to
always follow the moral precident has to do with the effect of change
on their decisions and not due to some increased evilness in them,
unless you define change as evil.
In summary, I think that moral systems are an artifact of a
cultural response to history and to historical change, having its
roots in technical, political, and economic changes. There are
moral universals having their roots in human biology, and religion
serves the role as a drug used to control the submissive majority
and to reassure them, falsely.
Bruce Salem
>
>: One thing we will have to do is to restrict wealth connected with
>: churches, especialy if churches of any kind start to meddle in politics
>: in any serious way. This means examining the tax laws for loopholes which
>: allow churches to support political causes and not pay taxes on the
>: assets used for these purposes. Real estate not used for worship or
>: cherity should be subject to taxes.
>: Bruce Salem
>
>Your objection to churches not paying taxes, ignores the purpose of a
>church. If a church uses the proceeds of charitable giving (which is
>exempt from taxation) to extend charity to the unfortunate, it becomes
>in effect, an agent for those who made the original gift.
>
>institutions, consider that a churches purpose is unique and cannot be
>fulfilled by any existing secular entity.
I have no doubt that the independance of chruches from the seat
of power in this country has at several points in our history made them
a valuable source of criticism. The Methodists and Southern Baptists
were and are important in the Civil Rights Movement. We should maintain
this independance, and keep the churches from direct influience in politics.
In any case, I see your assertion about the uniquess of churches,
and the inability of any other institution to take a critical position or
moral high ground, as an unsupported assertion. Nor do I think that reliigon,
or the organized kind we have, can be the only source for moral guidence
or example.
> It's also a mistake to
>condemn the political orientation of churches as an incursion into an
>entirely secular arena; anything that affects the welfare of mankind
>at large is within the province of the churches. The only argument
>that's left then, is that you disapprove of churches and/or the
>religion they are founded on and this is what most such objections
>amount to.
I don't wish to curb the free speech of any church or any
individual or organization. If chruches can say things that other
groups cannot, a fact which I doubt, then their right to speak up
is welcomed. What I want is a true separation of church and state,
and in particular, I do not want any church to be a PAC and to be
able to use its material assets to coerce any agency of the gvernment.
I would restrict the tax-exempt activities of churches to cherity
and to worship. They cannot own comercial enterprizes, and people
cannot give gifts to them for other than not-for-profit activities
and the two roles cited above. Spending in political compaigns by
churches should be even more restricted than for business because
of the special consideration that ought to be given to separating
church from state, due to the special devisiveness of sectarian
political conflict.
Stephen F. Schaffner
>In article <CAuID...@news.iastate.edu> kv...@iastate.edu (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>>In article <1993Jul27....@midway.uchicago.edu> azle...@amber.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>Are you aware of recent philosophy of science? Are you aware of Feuerabend? He
>>>has a fairly witty argument for allowing non-conventional theories to exist,
>>>indeed he argues that they should be invented when non are around.
>>
>> I very much doubt he meant one that has absolutely no support, is easily
>>disproven with information gathered decades ago, and completely assertive
>>rather than based on evidence.
>>
>Read "Against Method". See for yourself.
Yes, Feyerabend's views are pretty radical. Perhaps that's why they're
rejected by most philosophers of science (at least that's my impression --
any philosophers of science out there?). For example, here's
Frederick Suppe's conclusion: "In short, other than perhaps to the
most fanatical Hegelian, Feyerabend's philosophy of science has little
to recommend itself and is losing whatever importance and influence
it once had within philosphy of science." (from the afterword to _The
Structure of Scientific Theories_)
>> The point is that Creationism does not adress the weak points of evolution.
>>It attacks nonexistant strawmen put up as evolution, with bogus reasoning to
>>boot!
>>
>>
>"Bogus Reasoning" is harder to differentiate from "Real Reasoning" than you think.
>Philosophers of science have been struggling with it for a century and a half,
>and the result is zilch.
"Zilch" seems a little extreme, but it's true that finding general
criteria for distinguishing between science and non-science (or between
good and bad science) is very difficult (either that or the philosophers
are very stupid, which is possible but unlikely). On the other
hand, in practice scientists (among others) have a decent record in
making the distinction in particular cases (judged by the crude
standard of success in manipulating and predicting natural phenomena).
--
Steve Schaffner ssc...@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC,
Stanford University, or the DOE.
Warren Vonroeschlaub
>>In article <1993Jul27....@midway.uchicago.edu> azle...@amber.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>Are you aware of recent philosophy of science? Are you aware of Feuerabend?
>>>indeed he argues that they should be invented when non are around.
>>
>> I very much doubt he meant one that has absolutely no support, is easily
>>disproven with information gathered decades ago, and completely assertive
>>rather than based on evidence.
>>
>Read "Against Method". See for yourself.
Ah for the time to read every book people tell me to read.
I suppose it would be ad-hominem for me to say that if he did he was a
knucklehead. Once a theory is easily disproven there is no need for it to
remain. And it doesn't matter how many people want it to be true either.
>> The point is that Creationism does not adress the weak points of evolution.
>>It attacks nonexistant strawmen put up as evolution, with bogus reasoning to
>>boot!
>>
>>
>"Bogus Reasoning" is harder to differentiate from "Real Reasoning" than you t
>Philosophers of science have been struggling with it for a century and a half,
>and the result is zilch.
Well, at least you seem to agree they do throw up strawmen. However, by
bogus reasoning I mean such wonderful logical methods as the following (what I
call the "Average Person's Axioms of First Order Predicate Logic"):
(A => B) => (B => A)
(There exists) x A(x) => (For all) x A(x)
(A => C) & (B => C) => (A => B)
I very much doubt you will find anyone who knows logic that agrees with any
of these.
>By the way, I had a third point - that you should hold yourself to the same
>standard of scientificity you propose for others. If you assume the connection
>"Mim's creationist views make him unscientific",
Leave Mims out of this. I'm talking about Creationism, not Creationists.
Reagrdless of the people themselves, the arguments are what is bogus.
>Christians believe in divinity of Jesus, Jews believe in the ten commandments,
>believe in connection between creationism and bad science. As scientists, you
>SA ought not to act on beliefs of that kind.
First of all, I am a Christian. Most people would even classify me as a
fundamentalist if we got into a discussion on theology.
Second, I don't "believe" in a connection between creationism and bad
science, I have seen it first hand. About one in twenty Bible studies I go to
end up being Creationism classes. I'm no biologist, but the holes in every
one of the claims is gaping enough to see. One day I got sick of it all, and
started listing valid problems with evolution (or at least ones I don't know
the answer to). The group leader listened patiently, and then went on as if I
had never spoken. Apparently even the basics of evolution needed to
understand these problems were over his head.
How can you intelligently attack something you never understood in the first
place?
--
Mark Isaak
>the -consequences- of opposing points of view, not the expression of
>those points of view;
Except that it's the expression they're trying to suppress.
>they are, for the most part, as concerned about
>the civil liberties of the average citizen as anyone else.
Except that their concern takes the form of wanting to *suppress*
civil liberties.
>If you are very well informed about the recent -secular- studies that
>show the social and psychological affects of the various "expressions"
>that have become protected by law, you must know that there is merit
>to the conservative Christian objections to socially destructive
>"freedoms".
Examples, please? Don't bother quoting any correlational studies;
they don't show cause and effect.
>There is also the more basic point that society has the
>right and the duty to protect itself from what it perceives to be
>dangerous and like it or not, that entails some form of censorship.
Thank you, Bill, for providing a direct example of the fascist
mindset of many so-called Christians. The Bill of Rights was written
specifically to help defend against the "protection" you call for.
The fact is, perceived dangers are a hell of a lot more common than
real dangers, and protecting against percieved dangers invariably
harms a great number of innocent people.
There is no greater harm a country can do to itself than "some form
of censorship." As soon as one side can use censorship to protect
itself against the danger that the other side poses, that one side
can do whatever it wants with virtual impunity. The ironic part is,
in such cases, the danger is usually real, not perceived; when
people want to destroy the side in power, it is often because that
side deserves to be destroyed.
It's too bad you didn't live in France 200 years ago, Bill. You
probably would have enjoyed seeing how society protected itself via
the liberal and almost indiscriminant use of guillotines.
>If there are no controls, no limits to behavior, then there is no
>society in any conventional sense, just an amorphous mass of
>people living in the same area.
Straw man. Lack of censorship doesn't imply no controls; it implies
that the controls aren't all in the same hands.
>One of the primary functions of any religion is to help define the
>standards of the society it operates in,
You damn well better keep your religion out of my standards. I
have seen some of the current religious standards. They are
abhorrent.
>suppress that and there is no
>basis for moral conduct and society disintegrates.
Religions have never shown any evidence that they are more moral
than secular sources. I think morality would improve greatly if
it were based on human relationships instead of theocratic
dictatorships.
--
Mark Isaak "There lives more faith in honest doubt,
is...@aurora.com Believe me, than in half the creeds." - Tennyson
young.u.huh
> [...]
> One thing we will have to do is to restrict wealth connected with
> churches, especialy if churches of any kind start to meddle in politics
> in any serious way. This means examining the tax laws for loopholes which
> allow churches to support political causes and not pay taxes on the
> assets used for these purposes. Real estate not used for worship or
> cherity should be subject to taxes.
>
> Bruce Salem
Talking about tax laws, I wonder whether "donations" given to churches
should be deductible on personal income-tax returns? If a person
gives a donation to his/her church, doesn't he/she do so, at least
partly, from the obligation, duty, or requirement of being a member of
the church? In addition, doesn't he/she receive certain benefits from
the church, where the benefits are funded by the donations? The
economic value of such benefits could be similar to counseling service
fees (e.g., pastoral advices), education fees (e.g., bible classes),
social club fees (e.g., church social activities), etc.?
In other words, at least some part of the donations paid to the church
are for self-serving purposes.
Young Huh
asia z lerner
>In article <1993Jul28.0...@midway.uchicago.edu> azle...@amber.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <CAuID...@news.iastate.edu> kv...@iastate.edu (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jul27....@midway.uchicago.edu> azle...@amber.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>Are you aware of recent philosophy of science? Are you aware of Feuerabend? He
>>>>has a fairly witty argument for allowing non-conventional theories to exist,
>>>>indeed he argues that they should be invented when non are around.
>>>
>>> I very much doubt he meant one that has absolutely no support, is easily
>>>disproven with information gathered decades ago, and completely assertive
>>>rather than based on evidence.
>>>
>>Read "Against Method". See for yourself.
>
>Yes, Feyerabend's views are pretty radical. Perhaps that's why they're
>rejected by most philosophers of science (at least that's my impression --
>any philosophers of science out there?).
Yep. Me. Yes, Feuerabend is radical, but he has his admirers, as well as his
detractors. He is, if fact, a central figure of a very fashionable direction
in history of science - relativism, which is the notion that every theory
constructs its own verification criterea, thus from a point of view located
whithin a particular theory (i.e. present day biology) an explanation
based on a different theory will seem nonsential. Does that remind you of
discussions between biologists and creationists?
For example, here's
>Frederick Suppe's conclusion: "In short, other than perhaps to the
>most fanatical Hegelian, Feyerabend's philosophy of science has little
>to recommend itself and is losing whatever importance and influence
>it once had within philosphy of science." (from the afterword to _The
>Structure of Scientific Theories_)
Since, as a student in history and philosophy of science I am very aware of
Feuerabend, but have never heard of Suppe before, I can only conclude that
Feuerabend is still fairly influential.
>
asia z lerner
>In article <1993Jul28.0...@midway.uchicago.edu> azle...@amber.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <CAuID...@news.iastate.edu> kv...@iastate.edu (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jul27....@midway.uchicago.edu> azle...@amber.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>Are you aware of recent philosophy of science? Are you aware of Feuerabend?
>>>>has a fairly witty argument for allowing non-conventional theories to exist,
>>>>indeed he argues that they should be invented when non are around.
>>>
> I suppose it would be ad-hominem for me to say that if he did he was a
>knucklehead. Once a theory is easily disproven there is no need for it to
>remain. And it doesn't matter how many people want it to be true either.
>
When a philosopher of science nowdays sees the word "true" he/she rund in the
opposite direction. And that is because we are quite unable to proove
that there is anything "true" behind our theories about the world, that any
kind of independent reality corresponds to our descriptions. At best, one could
say that our theories have explanatory power, but that is no reason why there
should not be two, or three, or million, for that matter, theories, explaining
an overlapping set of phenomena.
>
>>By the way, I had a third point - that you should hold yourself to the same
>>standard of scientificity you propose for others. If you assume the connection
>>"Mim's creationist views make him unscientific",
>
> Leave Mims out of this. I'm talking about Creationism, not Creationists.
>Reagrdless of the people themselves, the arguments are what is bogus.
>
>[stuff deleted]
> Second, I don't "believe" in a connection between creationism and bad
>science, I have seen it first hand.
Induction from observation to general principles, as you probably know, is
logically invalid. That you saw some creationists doing bad science
is no proof that all creationists do bad science, which is what you claim.
Its the generalization that bugs me. Mims is a contradictory
example to that, since nobody, as far as I know, prooved that his science
was in any way invalid. Since in presence of a counter example which logically
invalidates your general claim you still persist in making it, I can only deduce
that your claim is a matter of belief, and not a matter of knowledge.
About one in twenty Bible studies I go to
>end up being Creationism classes. I'm no biologist, but the holes in every
>one of the claims is gaping enough to see. One day I got sick of it all, and
>started listing valid problems with evolution (or at least ones I don't know
>the answer to). The group leader listened patiently, and then went on as if I
>had never spoken. Apparently even the basics of evolution needed to
>understand these problems were over his head.
>
I agree that some creationism/creationists is/are plain silly. I do not see,
however, why you insist on generalaizing it to an absolute principle.
Is it completly incredible to you that a creationist could come up with
a logical explanation or a reasonable critique of evolution? I have seen some
who did at least the later, if not the former.
>
>--
Michael Ladomery
...
>One of the primary functions of any religion is to help define the
>standards of the society it operates in, suppress that and there is no
>basis for moral conduct and society disintegrates. Those who find that
>desirable are naive in the extreme, believing human nature to be
>fundamentally benign and capable of significantly improving itself.
>There is no historical warrant for their optimizism.
One is tempted to ask, why is it that in _religiously correct_
communities, immoral behaviour nonetheless occurs?
Are there not forms of social disintegration even in these
_religiously correct_ societies?
Even if religion (which religion? and which sect of which religion?)
helps define the standards of the society it operates in, it is not
necessarily an _absolute requirement_ for moral behaviour in that
society.
Moreover, there are many that argue that morality is a human
construct, as are good and evil; these are defined solely
according to human parameters, and they vary from society to
society.
I have this (perhaps disturbing view) that whatever we describe
as moral or good has some form of relationship with the desire
to survive and reproduce.
James J. Lippard
>In article <1993Jul28.0...@midway.uchicago.edu> azle...@amber.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <CAuID...@news.iastate.edu> kv...@iastate.edu (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jul27....@midway.uchicago.edu> azle...@amber.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>Are you aware of recent philosophy of science? Are you aware of Feuerabend? He
>>>>has a fairly witty argument for allowing non-conventional theories to exist,
>>>>indeed he argues that they should be invented when non are around.
>>>
>>> I very much doubt he meant one that has absolutely no support, is easily
>>>disproven with information gathered decades ago, and completely assertive
>>>rather than based on evidence.
>>>
>>Read "Against Method". See for yourself.
>
>Yes, Feyerabend's views are pretty radical. Perhaps that's why they're
>rejected by most philosophers of science (at least that's my impression --
>any philosophers of science out there?). For example, here's
>Frederick Suppe's conclusion: "In short, other than perhaps to the
>most fanatical Hegelian, Feyerabend's philosophy of science has little
>to recommend itself and is losing whatever importance and influence
>it once had within philosphy of science." (from the afterword to _The
>Structure of Scientific Theories_)
This is my impression, as well. One good, concise critique of
Feyerabend may be found in a chapter of Newton-Smith's _The Rationality
of Science_ (1980? 81?), a book which also critiques Kuhn, Popper, and
Lakatos.
Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lip...@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Matthew P Wiener
>Talking about tax laws, I wonder whether "donations" given to churches
>In other words, at least some part of the donations paid to the church
>are for self-serving purposes.
This is silly. How is the IRS supposed to determine which donations
are partly self-serving and which aren't? Sheesh. Our tax laws are
complicated enough as is.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Seth L. Kroger
>In article <CAuID...@news.iastate.edu> kv...@iastate.edu (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>> The point is that Creationism does not adress the weak points of evolution.
>>It attacks nonexistant strawmen put up as evolution, with bogus reasoning to
>>boot!
>"Bogus Reasoning" is harder to differentiate from "Real Reasoning" than
>you think. Philosophers of science have been struggling with it for a
>century and a half, and the result is zilch.
Just because there is some problem in marking a boundary between "Bogus"
and "Real" reasoning, or that the boundary is fuzzy, doesn't mean there
isn't a real difference between the two.
>By the way, I had a third point - that you should hold yourself to the
>same standard of scientificity you propose for others. If you assume
>the connection "Mim's creationist views make him unscientific", in
>order to make this statement a scientific (empirical) statement you
>will have to show that it has observable results, i. e. Mim does bad
>science. Otherwise it is a metaphisical, and not an empirical
>statement, a matter of belief. Christians believe in divinity of
>Jesus, Jews believe in the ten commandments, you believe in connection
>between creationism and bad science. As scientists, you and SA ought
>not to act on beliefs of that kind.
In my observation, all the creationists I've meet are anti-scientific to
a large degree. This leads me to the conclusion that whenever I meet a
creationist in the future, it is very probably he is anti-scientific as
well. Also, it leads me to conclude that creationists are
anti-scientific in general. That is still an empirical statement, not a
metaphysical one, because it's based on emperical data.
It is also my experience that people who bring up the word 'metaphysics'
in a conversation often don't know what they are talking about.
|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger "If God made us in His image we |
| skr...@oboe.calpoly.edu have certainly returned the |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo compliment." -Voltaire |
Seth L. Kroger
>In article <CAuEM...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> adpe...@bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
>>This is all well and good. Are you implying that such a
>>non-conventional theory exists - more specifically, are you implying
>>that "scientific creationism" is such a theory? If so, please state
>>the theory.
>>
>>Are you implying that creationism actually points out any weaknesses
>>in evolutionary theory that biologists haven't always realized were
>>there? If so, please give some specific examples.
>>
>>Please, if you're so well-versed in the philosophy of science, explain
>>exactly how it is that creationism can be defined as a scientific theory.
>Intelligent creationists spend about 50% of their time on pointing out
>the problems with evolutionary theory. By the way, there are plenty of
>biologists that like to pretend that such problems do not exist, it
>does them good to be reminded.
Hmmmmm... I've must have missed these people and their problems with
evolution. The creationists I've talked to and read all spend their
time pointing out problems with some bogus strawman of evolution. They
know hardly anything of the actuall theory to point out any real
problems. While I might agree it would be useful if they pointed out
some real problems with the theory, but they don't. Their stuff is so
full of holes, it's tiresome and obnoxious to have to refute the oft
repeated drivel.
If there are creationists pointing out real problems in evolution, could
you please explain what these problems are?
Matthew P Wiener
>>Yes, Feyerabend's views are pretty radical. Perhaps that's why they're
>>rejected by most philosophers of science (at least that's my impression --
>>any philosophers of science out there?).
>Yep. Me. Yes, Feuerabend is radical, but he has his admirers, as well
>as his detractors. [...]
Note that it is possible to admire Feyerabend without agreeing with him.
>>Frederick Suppe's conclusion: "In short, other than perhaps to the
>>most fanatical Hegelian, Feyerabend's philosophy of science has little
>>to recommend itself and is losing whatever importance and influence
>>it once had within philosphy of science." (from the afterword to _The
>>Structure of Scientific Theories_)
That's a yawn. Feyerabend, regardless of his actual theories, has been
an important antidote to science-is-just-filling-in-the-blanks style of
philosophies that have been overly influential.
>Since, as a student in history and philosophy of science I am very
>aware of Feuerabend, but have never heard of Suppe before, I can only
>conclude that Feuerabend is still fairly influential.
If you're so aware, why don't you spell his name correctly?
Robert Wiegand
>From article <86...@cup.portal.com>,
>by soft-...@cup.portal.com (Kevin W Davidson):
>> We have to be careful in asking whether the Scientific American is
>> practicing religious discrimination, or scientific discrimination.
>I'm asking whether they practiced religious discrimination, and there
>is evidence that they did. I've found no evidence whatsoever that
>they practiced "scientific disrimination".
I think many creationists would be upset to hear you label their
beliefs as purely religious. Many creationists have been working very
hard to get their ideas accepted as *scientific*.
A belief in creationism is in direct conflict with mainstream science,
and as such does not represent the viewpoint of SA magazine. This is
no different than their not hiring someone who expressed a belief
that pereptual motion machines were possible, or that the earth is flat.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
wie...@rtsg.mot.com
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
asia z lerner
>
>>Since, as a student in history and philosophy of science I am very
>>aware of Feuerabend, but have never heard of Suppe before, I can only
>>conclude that Feuerabend is still fairly influential.
>
>If you're so aware, why don't you spell his name correctly?
>--
>-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
As long as I get his ideas correctly...
Warren Vonroeschlaub
azle...@deirdre.uchicago.edu (asia z lerner) writes:
>In article <CAvu5...@news.iastate.edu> kv...@iastate.edu (Warren
Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>> I suppose it would be ad-hominem for me to say that if he did he was a
>>knucklehead. Once a theory is easily disproven there is no need for it to
>>remain. And it doesn't matter how many people want it to be true either.
>
>When a philosopher of science nowdays sees the word "true" he/she rund in the
>opposite direction. And that is because we are quite unable to proove
>that there is anything "true" behind our theories about the world, that any
>kind of independent reality corresponds to our descriptions. At best, one
could
>say that our theories have explanatory power, but that is no reason why there
>should not be two, or three, or million, for that matter, theories, explaining
>an overlapping set of phenomena.
I agree. However a theory that has negative explaining power(*) can usually
be tossed. Indeed, the only cases where I can think you would ever keep a
theory with negative explaining poweris if you were trying to oversimplify
things for popularizations.
If Creationism, as it has been presented so far, is merely a popularisation,
I'd be quite happy to hear what the actual theory is.
(*) Since you seem to have thrown out the concept of predictivness, I assume
"explaining power" is supposed to be a synonym. Thus "negative explaining
power" would mean making false, or throwing out valid, predictions.
>> Second, I don't "believe" in a connection between creationism and bad
>>science, I have seen it first hand.
>
>Induction from observation to general principles, as you probably know, is
>logically invalid. That you saw some creationists doing bad science
>is no proof that all creationists do bad science, which is what you claim.
>Its the generalization that bugs me. Mims is a contradictory
>example to that, since nobody, as far as I know, prooved that his science
>was in any way invalid. Since in presence of a counter example which logically
>invalidates your general claim you still persist in making it, I can only
deduce
>that your claim is a matter of belief, and not a matter of knowledge.
Well, a simple way top correct this is to actually present some valid science
in Creationism. Just one piece of such would disprove my claims. No takers?
Let us then say that, after exstensive examination of the evidence (literally
a decade of study) and not finding a single valid, or even close to valid, piece
of science in Creationism, the T-ratio is well over 99.9999%.
Now, I may be goofy here, but I take that as pretty darn good evidence.
Absolute proof in the mathematical sense? No. But it is almost as good
evidence as my belief you are a real person and not an AI project.
>>About one in twenty Bible studies I go to
>>end up being Creationism classes. I'm no biologist, but the holes in every
>>one of the claims is gaping enough to see. One day I got sick of it all, and
>>started listing valid problems with evolution (or at least ones I don't know
>>the answer to). The group leader listened patiently, and then went on as if
I
>>had never spoken. Apparently even the basics of evolution needed to
>>understand these problems were over his head.
>
>I agree that some creationism/creationists is/are plain silly. I do not see,
>however, why you insist on generalaizing it to an absolute principle.
Sorry, did I hear you say "some". Can you identify a single case of valid
Creationist claims? Considering the mass I've seen, and the complete lack of
anything else (despite an honest search), I find the claim "most" would be
understating the case. Anything short of "all" would require some evidence.
While I understand that philosophy encourages this way of thinking, my own
training in Mathematics tends to be in the more solid side. I am sure pi!=3,
and anyone who claims the opposite is not providing a valid critique no matter
how sincere they may be.
>Is it completly incredible to you that a creationist could come up with
>a logical explanation or a reasonable critique of evolution? I have seen some
>who did at least the later, if not the former.
"Possible"? I suppose so. It is also "possible" monkeys will fly out of my
butt.
Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh, but I have spent the last decade reading a
great deal of Creationist literature. While I did belive some of their claims
were honest crtiques at the time, a month on t.o showed that every last one of
them was either a strawman or an outright lie. I could not find a single
honest, informed (which is really part of being honest) attack.
| __L__
-|- ___ Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
| | o | kv...@iastate.edu
|/ `---' Iowa State University
/| ___ Math Department
| |___| 400 Carver Hall
| |___| Ames, IA 50011
J _____
Warren Vonroeschlaub
(Seth L. Kroger) writes:
>It is also my experience that people who bring up the word 'metaphysics'
>in a conversation often don't know what they are talking about.
Really? It's the phrase "beyond reality" which activates my loon-o-meter.
Eric Sieferman
>>
>Are you aware of recent philosophy of science? Are you aware of Feuerabend? He
>has a fairly witty argument for allowing non-conventional theories to exist,
>that a competing theory can chart the problematic areas of a prevalent theory and
>accentuate it's weak points. And evolutionists can benefit from that - it has
>been obvious to biologists for a while that a range of issues that is either
>complacently seen as solved or is shoved aside as non-important is in fact
>highly important and nothing like solved. Understanding the weekness of the
>evolutionary theory is every bit as important as understanding it's strenth.
Name an issue which biologists see as solved or have shoved aside, which
is highly important and nothing like solved. Since there a range of these
issues, naming one should not be too difficult.
asia z lerner
Generation of complex body organs i.g. eyes through the evolutionary process.
Intermediate stages between non-seeing organisms and seeing organisms imply the
existence of a sequence of non-functional proto-eyes converging towards real eyes.
Q. Does that coinside with the evolutionary principle of adaptation?
A. No.
Look, I don't mean that evolution is not an interesting theory. By the way of
explanation, it's probably the best we have got. But if some controvercially-minded
people remind us of the problems with evolutionary explanations, they are doing science
a favour.
Jon Livesey
|>
|> Generation of complex body organs i.g. eyes through the evolutionary process.
|> Intermediate stages between non-seeing organisms and seeing organisms imply the
|> existence of a sequence of non-functional proto-eyes converging towards real eyes.
Why do you specify "non-functional"?
|>
|> Q. Does that coinside with the evolutionary principle of adaptation?
|>
|> A. No.
Care to supply just a teeny bit more detail than "No?"
jon.
asia z lerner
>In article <1993Jul29....@midway.uchicago.edu>, azle...@deirdre.uchicago.edu (asia z lerner) writes:
>|>
>|> Generation of complex body organs i.g. eyes through the evolutionary process.
>|> Intermediate stages between non-seeing organisms and seeing organisms imply the
>|> existence of a sequence of non-functional proto-eyes converging towards real eyes.
>
>Why do you specify "non-functional"?
Because it's hard to imagine what could be functional stages of such a process.
>
>|>
>|> Q. Does that coinside with the evolutionary principle of adaptation?
>|>
>|> A. No.
>
>Care to supply just a teeny bit more detail than "No?"
>
>jon.
With pleasure. If adaptation drives change it is incoherent to suppose that it will
give rise to non-functional organs (the intermediate stages of my example).
By the way, do YOU suppose evolution to be a theory without problems?
Stephen Matheson
participate in between experiments...
What I'll do is respond to selected articles that deal with the
issues that I deem important. If there is an unanswered question
that you feel is important, please let me know by email or another
post. Also, I'll just monitor talk.origins, since that seems to be
where most of the activity is generated.
I'm collecting everything and will send it to Mr. Mims.
Has anyone contacted him, and if they have, have they heard back?
See you all,
--Steve
--
Steve Matheson Program in Neuroscience University of Arizona
s...@neurobio.arizona.edu
Jon Livesey
|> In article <2378lh$5...@fido.asd.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >In article <1993Jul29....@midway.uchicago.edu>, azle...@deirdre.uchicago.edu (asia z lerner) writes:
|> >|>
|> >|> Generation of complex body organs i.g. eyes through the evolutionary process.
|> >|> Intermediate stages between non-seeing organisms and seeing organisms imply the
|> >|> existence of a sequence of non-functional proto-eyes converging towards real eyes.
|> >
|> >Why do you specify "non-functional"?
|>
|> Because it's hard to imagine what could be functional stages of such a process.
I don't have any problem imagining stages: a patch of cells somewhat
sensitive to light, a patch of light-sensitive cells in a depression,
a patch of cells in a deep depression with a pin-hole entry, a patch
of cells in a depression filled with a liquid, a patch of cells in a
depression filled with a liquid with a lens.....
And before you swan off on some diversionary tack, I'm not claiming
that this is not necessarily how it did happen: I'm addressing the
fatuous claim that "It's hard to imagine" functional stages.
You need to distinguish between "It's hard to imagine..." and "I
am personally unwilling to imagine....."
|> >
|> >|>
|> >|> Q. Does that coinside with the evolutionary principle of adaptation?
|> >|>
|> >|> A. No.
|> >
|> >Care to supply just a teeny bit more detail than "No?"
|> >
|> >jon.
|>
|> With pleasure. If adaptation drives change it is incoherent to suppose
|> that it will give rise to non-functional organs (the intermediate stages
|> of my example).
But the only reason to suppose that it is going to give rise to
non-functional organs is your personal lack of imagination, it
seems. So this is a straw man based on appeal to incredulity.
|>
|> By the way, do YOU suppose evolution to be a theory without problems?
No, why do YOU ask?
jon.
Warren Vonroeschlaub
>In article <2374po$b...@news.u.washington.edu> sief...@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>>Name an issue which biologists see as solved or have shoved aside, which
>>is highly important and nothing like solved. Since there a range of these
>>issues, naming one should not be too difficult.
>
>Generation of complex body organs i.g. eyes through the evolutionary process.
>Intermediate stages between non-seeing organisms and seeing organisms imply th
Talk origins has a wide variety of FAQs. The topic you address is
thouroughly covered in the related FAQ. It is also, not suprisingly, as old
as Darwin himself and clearly explained since then.
It would be greatly to your benefit to at least glance over the titles of
the FAQs so that you have some idea what you are talking about.
We now return you to your original post.
>Look, I don't mean that evolution is not an interesting theory. By the way of
>explanation, it's probably the best we have got. But if some controvercially
>-minded people remind us of the problems with evolutionary explanations, they
>are doing science a favour.
Such people already exist, and they are not Creationists.
--
James J. Lippard
>In article <CAvu5...@news.iastate.edu> kv...@iastate.edu (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>> I suppose it would be ad-hominem for me to say that if he did he was a
>>knucklehead. Once a theory is easily disproven there is no need for it to
>>remain. And it doesn't matter how many people want it to be true either.
>>
>
>When a philosopher of science nowdays sees the word "true" he/she rund in the
>opposite direction. And that is because we are quite unable to proove
>that there is anything "true" behind our theories about the world, that any
>kind of independent reality corresponds to our descriptions. At best, one could
>say that our theories have explanatory power, but that is no reason why there
>should not be two, or three, or million, for that matter, theories, explaining
>an overlapping set of phenomena.
There are still realist philosophers of science out here. What you describe
here is a vague description of the view of scientific theories advocated by
Bas van Fraassen, but philosophers such as Philip Kitcher (_The Advancement
of Science_, 1993, Oxford Univ. Press, highly recommended), Ernan McMullin,
Ian Hacking, etc. aren't afraid of truth or realism.
mi...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
> From article <233t1f$a...@morrow.stanford.edu>,
> by sa...@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem):
>> Most of these conservative churches are theocratic in one form
>> or other, and none of them, if given the chance, would resist the abuse of
>> power.
>
> This is an outrageous, unsubstantiated, ignorant, bigoted, blatant
> assertion that threatens to establish everything else you say as
> insane babbling.
I am not a member of a church or synagogue, as I've said
before; but I have to agree with Matheson. The anti-religious
paranoia we see in Bruce Salem's remarks seems to be spreading like
wildfire.
Persecution of religions often begins with just this sort of
fear that "they're taking over." Religionists can see the
unintended humor in this nonsense: no religion in America has anything
remotely like the unity that would be required to "theocratize" an
entire society.
The cause of bigotry is always ignorance. Religions do have
principles they regard as supremely important, but I can assure Bruce
that if he will actually enter a place of worship he is very unlikely
to find people talking about taking over the government.
>> One thing we will have to do is to restrict wealth connected with
>> churches, especialy if churches of any kind start to meddle in politics
>> in any serious way.
I rest my case.
-- Ken
+---------------------------+----------------------------------------+
| mi...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu | In order to understand anything it is |
| opinions are my own, not | necessary to kill it... science is a |
| my employer's | cemetery of dead ideas. - Unamuno |
+---------------------------+----------------------------------------+
Evan W. Steeg
>
>It might be the case that the evolution of the eye is not as problematic
>as it initially seemed to me, however you yourself admit that evolution
>is a theory that has its problems. That was a point I was trying to make.
>In addition, wether biologists need it or not, some creationists do
>make a point of logically pursuing the problems of the theory. Why is
>admitting that the end of the world?
>
OK, a very few creationists have mustered the intelligence, knowledge,
and honesty to point out *currently unsolved* issues in evolutionary
biology. Of course, whether such "gaps" in the theory were previously
unknown, and whether the creationist had any semblance of a theory
or even rational exxplanation with which to patch the "hole" is
another question entirely. By and large, as has been pointed out
to you in postings, and as you may (nay, ought to) read in the FAQs,
the creationist attacks on evolution have been ignorant, dishonest,
shrill, and factually wrong. This great tradition continues almost
daily on this newsgroup. See for yourself. Watch, for example,
how every new creationist at some point proposes, with great fanfare
as if s/he is the first cretin ever to have thought of this, that
their utterly bogus misrepresentation of the Second Law of Thermodyanmics
"proves" that life couldn't evolve from "lower" to "higher" forms.
Likewise, several bank-robbers have aided the bank security devices
industry by finding and exploiting temporary gaps in the logic
and implementation of bank security systems.
However, neither the creationists nor bank-robbers are particulary
well-meaning nor generally praiseworthy (many creationists have as
much as said they are out to destroy or suppress modern biological
science and science and rationality and liberal education in general).
Moreover, just as bank-robbers have failed to "prove" that banks
are not good places to keep money, likewise, for all their efforts,
creationists have failed to "prove" (or even make reasonable and
supported arguments) that the theory of evolution is "wrong".
The banking system does not need criminals, and science does not
"need" ignorant and biased anti-scientific forces, to find the
"holes" in the theories.
What the creationists, along with other pseudoscientists and
anti-science zealots, seem inexplicably to fail to understand
is that *scientists* can be trusted (in fact can be counted on)
to try to find holes in existing theories and to try to establish
new ones. Sorry to shatter your cherished myths of Grand Conspiracies
of Evil Atheistic Scientists trying to Suppress Dissent and Truth,
but the reality is far different. As a scientist about to get
my PhD, I can tell you that I would *love* to overturn an existing
paradigm. To find a fatal flaw in an existing theory and to establish
my own that might stand for years, decades, or centuries -- would be
to "write my own ticket", to say the very least.
-- Evan
PS I've removed talk.abortion from the newsgroups line. You must
have typed it in there by mistake; surely you're not one of the
utterly moronic form of creationist who believes that all
"evolutionists" (people who understand modern biology, geology, etc.)
are "baby-killing atheists". (Or, if so, you forgot to add soc.motss
and talk.politics.misc, because we're all gay and Communist as well :-P .
--
Evan W. Steeg (416) 978-5182 st...@ai.toronto.edu
Dept of Computer Science st...@santafe.edu
University of Toronto,
Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4
Darius A. Lecointe
> In article <2390gk$e...@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, s...@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
> > From article <233t1f$a...@morrow.stanford.edu>,
> > by sa...@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem):
>
> >> Most of these conservative churches are theocratic in one form
> >> or other, and none of them, if given the chance, would resist the abuse of
> >> power.
> >
> > This is an outrageous, unsubstantiated, ignorant, bigoted, blatant
> > assertion that threatens to establish everything else you say as
> > insane babbling.
>
> I am not a member of a church or synagogue, as I've said
> before; but I have to agree with Matheson. The anti-religious
> paranoia we see in Bruce Salem's remarks seems to be spreading like
> wildfire.
>
> Persecution of religions often begins with just this sort of
> fear that "they're taking over." Religionists can see the
> unintended humor in this nonsense: no religion in America has anything
> remotely like the unity that would be required to "theocratize" an
> entire society.
>
history clearly shows that oppression, and persecution, is the often natural
result of the church obtaining temporal power. I would dare say that it
is in the rarest of cases that religions have been persecuted by secular
powers. In most cases religions have been persecuted by those religious
powers which managed to obtain control of the government or state.
Unfortunately, this is precisely where America is headed and there is
really nothing you can do to stop it.
--
Darius Lecointe God is the answer to a question.
dlec...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu
dlec...@freenet.scri.fsu.edu
asia z lerner
>In article <1993Aug1.0...@midway.uchicago.edu>, azle...@deirdre.uchicago.edu (asia z lerner) writes:
>|> In article <23fg7m$9...@fido.asd.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>|> >In article <1993Aug1.0...@midway.uchicago.edu>, azle...@deirdre.uchicago.edu (asia z lerner) writes:
>|> >|>
>|> >|> One of them, for example, was making a point about difficulties with proovability
>|> >|> of very lenghty events. He was trying to relate the notion of the lenght of
>|> >|> a process and it's status as an empirical entity. The argument was this:
>|> >[.....]|>
>|> >
>|> >And are you nominating this as one of the "problems" with evolution
>|> >that Creationists have identified?
>|> >
>|> >jon.
>|>
>|> Is this a rhetorical question?
>|>
>
>Is this a tap dance?
>
>jon.
No, a tap dance is much more interesting. I am tuning out of this discussion.
Have a good evolution, Mr. Livesey.
Matthew P Wiener
>Since so many interesting discoveries in science were accidents, perhaps we
>should give creationists a chance?
Of course. Meanwhile, we think they're idiots and morons and doofi.
James J. Lippard
>In article <23f9ql$6...@fido.asd.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>|>
>>|> Mea culpa. I base my opinion on having heard a couple of creationists speak,
>>|> but I do not retain their names. My opinion about what at least some of
>>|> them were saying stands.
>>
>>And what were they saying?
>>
>>jon.
>
>
>One of them, for example, was making a point about difficulties with proovability
>of very lenghty events. He was trying to relate the notion of the lenght of
>a process and it's status as an empirical entity. The argument was this:
>
>"accesible" to us: sight, sound, taste, etc...
>
>2) Though other perseptors may exist (ultrasound, or some such), in order
>to persieve them we must translate them into one of the senses that we do
>have
>
>Now, the his (the creationist in question) innovative point was to try and
>see the notion of "human lifespan" as one of the "senses", so to speak, so
>that the accesibility of a prossess to empirical verification would depend on its
>taking a time that is somewhat proximate to human lifespan, proximity to be
>understoon whidely - a milisecond or thousand years are proximate enough. But
>something that took 100,000,000 years would be seen as problematic. Same
>with infinitesmally small amounts of time.
>
>He (Mr. C) got into a heated discussion, as I remember, over the cut-off point,
>that is are 50,000 problematic? or do the problems start only at 1,000,000? and
>why at that particular point, and not the other. I think he ended up agreeing
>that the delimiter was rather fuzzy.
This is really quite a silly argument. Would this creationist also maintain
that an analogous problem holds for spatially lengthy objects, like continents,
which cannot be directly observed as a whole at once by any individual
observer? If not, why not?
Herb Huston
}In article <CAwos...@news.iastate.edu> kv...@iastate.edu (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
}>
}>>Look, I don't mean that evolution is not an interesting theory. By the way of
}>>explanation, it's probably the best we have got. But if some controvercially
}>>-minded people remind us of the problems with evolutionary explanations, they
}>>are doing science a favour.
}>
}> Such people already exist, and they are not Creationists.
}>
}>--
}
Given the ignorance of evolutionary biology that you have so far demonstrated
(and in public, too), how are you in a position to judge?
(I've removed talk.abortion from the newsgroups list and set followups to
talk.origins.)
-- Herb Huston
-- hus...@access.digex.net
Dennis F. Hefferman
> I guess because what I lack in sophistication I try to make up for
>in inspiration (some prefer this).
I don't.
> But I guess my problem is I have such a weak mind. I just don't
>see how a universe divested of an imposed moral order (via say God or Karma
>or whatever) leads one to conclude that morality is anything more than
>an invention of governments and priests in order to control us.
It doesn't. Morality is nothing but a proposed code of behavior
adopted by a group ostensibly by consensus for the purpose of cooperative
interaction. It's not really any different from beating people up to make
them go along with you. It's just prettier.
> Logically, as people only greasy bags of protoplasm, I can see to reason
>not to kill them as mercilessly as I would a fly-or rape and beat them for
>that matter (if I scare them bad enough not to testify, how's it gonna
>hurt me).
There isn't a reason, though I should point out that that part about
avoiding retribution is pretty problematic.
> Please explain this to me, I'm afraid my mind has been weakened too long
>by religion- it seems to me "atheistic ethics" are merely a sentimental
>psuedo-religion religion for people too weak to take the immoral nature of
>reality.
I won't put words in anyone else's mouth, but as an atheist I obey
the conventions of morality because it makes my life easier. I don't have
to waste time dodging the police and I don't have to worry about anyone
cutting my throat while I sleep.
Followups to whatever group this discussion really belongs to,
please.
asia z lerner
>In article <1993Aug1.0...@midway.uchicago.edu>, azle...@amber.uchicago.edu writes...
>>
>>of very lenghty events. He was trying to relate the notion of the lenght of
>>a process and it's status as an empirical entity. The argument was this:
>>
>This is really quite a silly argument. Would this creationist also maintain
>that an analogous problem holds for spatially lengthy objects, like continents,
>which cannot be directly observed as a whole at once by any individual
>observer? If not, why not?
>
>Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Actualy, continents are not a problem - presumably, you can fly a plane around
one and reassure yourself that it really exists. But presumably the same
problem would exist for something like 'the shape of the universe" (close,
open, whatever), or perhaps the sub-atomic domain were the problem is
smallness rather then bulk. And by the way, the point isn't that estimations
of the very large/small/lenghty ... should not be done, only that the label
"empirical" is not suitable to such theoretical entities.
Stan Friesen
|> In article <CAwos...@news.iastate.edu> kv...@iastate.edu (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
|> >
|> >>explanation, it's probably the best we have got. But if some controvercially
|> >>-minded people remind us of the problems with evolutionary explanations, they
|> >>are doing science a favour.
|> >
|> > Such people already exist, and they are not Creationists.
|> >
|> >--
|>
I have yet to see any such contibution by a Creationist.
Not one thing I have ever seen written from a Creationist point
of view has *ever* had any relevence, or value, to modern biological
research.
--
sar...@teradata.com (formerly tdatirv!sarima)
or
Stanley...@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
The peace of God be with you.
Stan Friesen
|> In article <238v7e$n...@news.u.washington.edu> sief...@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
|> >
|> >What is the evolutionary principle of "adaptation"?
|> >
|> It is the principle that an organism will tend to change in a way that assures
|> it a greater chance of survival in a particular environment.
Yep, thought so. You do not understand the principles of evolutionary
theory.
There is no 'principle of adaption'. There *is* a principle
of natural selection, which is that existing variants which
happen to produce more surviving offspring than others will
tend to become more common.
A corollary, or implication, of this principle, is that, overall
*populations* of organisms will tend to become fairly well
adapted to their local environment. But organisms themselves
do *not* necessarily change to become more adapted.
|>
|> Since so many interesting discoveries in science were accidents, perhaps we
|> should give creationists a chance?
We do. Whenever they come up with something worthwhile, we
will look at it.
Stan Friesen
|> You have just agreed with my point that you have initially chalenged, so why
|> go on? The point was that the theory of evolution has unsolved problems,
*All* theories have unsolved problems. Relativity has unsolved
problems, Quantum Mechanics has unsolved problems, chemical reaction
kinematics has unsolved problems.
|> and that insofar as creationists refer to those problems their criticism is
|> legitimate.
Fine, when they point out a real, current, unsolved problem that
biologists are not already doing substantial research on, they
will have made a legitimte contribution.
|> (if not the eye - other stuff,
|> somebody mantioned flight in a post - so, take that),
Don't! Flight is not much more of a 'problem' than sight.
[Though the details are not as well worked through].
asia z lerner
>|> In article <238v7e$n...@news.u.washington.edu> sief...@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>|> >
>|> >What is the evolutionary principle of "adaptation"?
>|> >
>|> It is the principle that an organism will tend to change in a way that assures
>|> it a greater chance of survival in a particular environment.
>
>Yep, thought so. You do not understand the principles of evolutionary
>theory.
>
>There is no 'principle of adaption'. There *is* a principle
>of natural selection,
There is a notion that species adapt to their environment. If its missing
from your concept of evolution, than you are talking about a highly individual
interpretation of it.
which is that existing variants which
>happen to produce more surviving offspring than others will
>tend to become more common.
>
>A corollary, or implication, of this principle, is that, overall
>*populations* of organisms will tend to become fairly well
>adapted to their local environment. But organisms themselves
>do *not* necessarily change to become more adapted.
>
>|>
In my previous quote, I clearly did not mean that the individual
organism changes throughout the course of it's life. I meant that
the morphological structure definitive of the specie changes. And that
meaning is pretty obvious.
Matthew P Wiener
>>This is really quite a silly argument. Would this creationist also
>>maintain that an analogous problem holds for spatially lengthy
>>objects, like continents, which cannot be directly observed as a
>>whole at once by any individual observer? If not, why not?
>Actualy, continents are not a problem - presumably, you can fly a plane around
>one and reassure yourself that it really exists.
So were continents a thorny philosophical problem before this century?
I think not.
> But presumably the same
>problem would exist for something like 'the shape of the universe" (close,
>open, whatever), or perhaps the sub-atomic domain were the problem is
>smallness rather then bulk.
Or more simply, the planet Pluto.
> And by the way, the point isn't that estimations
>of the very large/small/lenghty ... should not be done, only that the label
>"empirical" is not suitable to such theoretical entities.
Is the length of the orbit of Pluto (247+) years an empirical or theoretical
entity?
Of course, this philosophical argument is only brought up by creationists
who have never thought about how little of routinely accepted "empirical"
fact is actually raw data. It remains thoroughly silly.
Stan Friesen
|>
|> You're right in stating that by disproving the theory of evolution
|> creationism doesn't automatically become correct. ...
|> However, theories can be proven to be false. This is how new
|> theories are formed. A scientist comes up with a theory, and
|> it holds until someone else comes along and shows that the
|> initial theory was incorrect. Usually a new and better theory
|> is proposed. Well, the theory of evolution (and I mean true
|> evolution -- from the amino acids all the way up to man) has
|> been discredited many times. What is left?
Well, temporarily pretending you are correct so far:
A great many things. There is always Fred Hoyle's Pangenesis.
There is also orthogenesis, there is vitalism, and many, many more.
|> Some form of the
|> creation theory. This theory may not be absolutely correct,
|> but it serves as a much better model than does evolution.s
As soon as it qualifies as a theory, it might.
You seem to have missed the point of Sami's bit about
"Last Thursdayism". Creationism, because it can 'explain'
literally *anything*, simply does *not* have the discriminatory
power required of a valid scientific theory.
asia z lerner
>
> OK, a very few creationists have mustered the intelligence, knowledge,
>and honesty to point out *currently unsolved* issues in evolutionary
>biology. Of course, whether such "gaps" in the theory were previously
>unknown, and whether the creationist had any semblance of a theory
>or even rational exxplanation with which to patch the "hole" is
>another question entirely. By and large, as has been pointed out
>to you in postings, and as you may (nay, ought to) read in the FAQs,
>the creationist attacks on evolution have been ignorant, dishonest,
>shrill, and factually wrong.
How do I get hold of that FAQ?
This great tradition continues almost
>daily on this newsgroup. See for yourself. Watch, for example,
>how every new creationist at some point proposes, with great fanfare
>as if s/he is the first cretin ever to have thought of this, that
>their utterly bogus misrepresentation of the Second Law of Thermodyanmics
>"proves" that life couldn't evolve from "lower" to "higher" forms.
>
> Likewise, several bank-robbers have aided the bank security devices
>industry by finding and exploiting temporary gaps in the logic
>and implementation of bank security systems.
>
But hang on, that's a great metaphore. Intelligent bank-robbers do
bring about (wether they intend it or not) the improvement of locks,
safes, and so on. Or think about what commputer hackers did for the
sophistication of commputer security systems. Perhaps creationists
are the hackers of evolutionary biology.
>
>PS I've removed talk.abortion from the newsgroups line. You must
>have typed it in there by mistake; surely you're not one of the
>utterly moronic form of creationist who believes that all
>"evolutionists" (people who understand modern biology, geology, etc.)
>are "baby-killing atheists". (Or, if so, you forgot to add soc.motss
>and talk.politics.misc, because we're all gay and Communist as well :-P .
>
It's perhaps hard to notice, but I am not a creationist at all.
I also have moderate-to-PC views about abortion, gays, communists,
etc.. And yes, the abortion group was a mistake - I must have
unswered somebody who had it in, without noticing.
Jon Livesey
>
> Actualy, continents are not a problem - presumably, you can fly a plane around
> one and reassure yourself that it really exists.
He's asking about the size of contintents, not their existence,
I think. And I don't see how flying around in an areoplane
helps much, unless you are saying that the speed of an aeroplane
is "proximate" to the unaided speed of a human being. And if
it isn't, how do you measure its speed? If you can't measure
its speed, how do you know the size of the thing you just flew
around?
jon.
Jon Livesey
>
> The cause of bigotry is always ignorance. Religions do have
> principles they regard as supremely important, but I can assure Bruce
> that if he will actually enter a place of worship he is very unlikely
> to find people talking about taking over the government.
How about if he went to a Republican Convention, or a local School
Board election instead?
jon.
asia z lerner
>In article <1993Aug1.2...@midway.uchicago.edu>, azlerner@random (asia z lerner) writes:
>
>>Actualy, continents are not a problem - presumably, you can fly a plane around
>>one and reassure yourself that it really exists.
>
>So were continents a thorny philosophical problem before this century?
>I think not.
>
The question of the shape/size/number of continents was a problem before the
era of trans-oceanic navigation, which made the visualisation of the continents posible. Take a look at any pre-16 century map
and see for your self.
>
>Or more simply, the planet Pluto.
>
>> And by the way, the point isn't that estimations
>>of the very large/small/lenghty ... should not be done, only that the label
>>"empirical" is not suitable to such theoretical entities.
>
[...]>
>Of course, this philosophical argument is only brought up by creationists
>who have never thought about how little of routinely accepted "empirical"
>fact is actually raw data. It remains thoroughly silly.
>--
>-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
There is so little raw data in something like the description of the
sub-atomic world that people have no problem admitting to the hypothetical
nature of the structures they are talking about, rather than claim
empirical status for them. Silly? Tell it to Bas Van Fraasen.
Jon Livesey
>
> bring about (wether they intend it or not) the improvement of locks,
> safes, and so on. Or think about what commputer hackers did for the
> sophistication of commputer security systems.
You may be close to something here, just not what you hope.
If you are thinking about someone like Robert Morris, he was,
I believe, a Computer Science student with a great deal of solid
knowledge of computer systems. His work depended on deep
knowledge of the systems he was working on, and of a security
hole in a mail(?) program, and he came to light only because
of a programming slip. He wasn't outside CS, he was quite
definitely inside.
On the other hand, while I was teaching Computer Science at
UW, it was my misfortune to have a couple of the temporarily
infamous Milwaukee 414s in my classes. And folks, they were
idiots. They demonstrated no knowledge of anything. All
they ever did was pass around stolen telephone numbers and
passwords, break into unguarded systems, and boast of their
exploits.
> Perhaps creationists are the hackers of evolutionary biology.
Depends what kind of hacker you have in mind, doesn't it.
jon.
Justin M. Sanders
>
>There is so little raw data in something like the description of the
>sub-atomic world that people have no problem admitting to the hypothetical
>nature of the structures they are talking about, rather than claim
>empirical status for them. Silly? Tell it to Bas Van Fraasen.
On the contrary, there is so much data (though indirect) concerning the
existance of most sub-atomic particles (let's take the electron as an
example), that physicists DO claim empirical status for them.
--
Justin M. Sanders "I admire his confidence in talking
Research Associate about a subject of which he has taken
Physics Division, ORNL the trouble to learn so little."
jsan...@orph14.phy.ornl.gov -- Ernest Rutherford on Lord Kelvin
Jon Livesey
>
> sub-atomic world that people have no problem admitting to the hypothetical
> nature of the structures they are talking about, rather than claim
> empirical status for them. Silly? Tell it to Bas Van Fraasen.
Yet there are many examples of technology that depend on these
models. Now what?
jon.
Stephen F. Schaffner
>>So were continents a thorny philosophical problem before this century?
>>I think not.
>
>The question of the shape/size/number of continents was a problem before the
>era of trans-oceanic navigation, which made the visualisation of the continents posible. Take a look at any pre-16 century map
>and see for your self.
I have to admit that I'm having trouble following your point, both in
general and in this sub-thread. Your original claim,
I take it, was that creationists deserve a hearing because the result
would somehow produce better (more varied? more interesting?) science.
Why you think that to be the case I don't know, since I haven't figured
out what you think the aim of science is, but leave that aside for now.
More specifically, you claimed that creationists would (and do) raise
problems that conventional scientists would otherwise be ignorant of or
ignore. In order to evaluate this claim, I'd like to have some idea of
what the contributions of the creationists might be (which shouldn't be
too hard to determine, since they've been raising a fairly consistent
set of objections for several decades now). That the problems raised
would be genuine ones, you argued, is probable given the assumption that
creationists are not perverse, because they would naturally raise
problems already discovered by conventional scientists. Even if
this argument is valid, of course, it does nothing to demonstrate
the usefulness
of having creationists rather than the conventional scientists pose
the problems, so it doesn't help me at all. Next you provided an
example of a problem that has actually been raised by a creationist,
the problem of the time scale of evolution. Now if you are simply
raising the point that it's harder to study processes that take place
very slowly (and, often, at a great distance in time from the observer)
than it is to study those that are more recent and that take place on
human time scales, I won't argue with you. What I still don't see,
however, is what role the creationists have, since geologists and
biologists (among others) are already acutely aware of
the difficulties (they're the ones who are actually trying to overcome
them after all). What the creationist means when he makes
this argument, however, and what you may mean, is that no valid
study of such processes is possible, which I think is indeed a silly
position to take. Your example of early maps is only relevant if you
believe there to be no data about the past available at all, which is
clearly not the case (or do you disagree?). So just what do you see as
creationists' contribution to science?
>There is so little raw data in something like the description of the
>sub-atomic world that people have no problem admitting to the hypothetical
>nature of the structures they are talking about, rather than claim
>empirical status for them. Silly? Tell it to Bas Van Fraasen.
This is an aside, but quite a lot of raw data go into the description
of the sub-atomic world. I presume you mean that the data are not
gathered directly by our senses. I really don't see what difference
that makes; yes, our description of sub-atomic physics consists of
theoretical constructs based on data, but so does our description of
the solar system, or of North America. Do you mean that if we
send an observer into orbit and he sees North America, it has empirical
status, but if we send a camera into orbit and take a picture, North
America has a hypothetical nature? (By the way, I don't know who you
mean by "people", but probably most physicists would be of the opinion
that electrons are no more hypothetical than are tables.)
--
Steve Schaffner ssc...@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC,
Stanford University, or the DOE.
Bruce Salem
> But I guess my problem is I have such a weak mind. I just don't
>see how a universe divested of an imposed moral order (via say God or Karma
>or whatever) leads one to conclude that morality is anything more than
>an invention of governments and priests in order to control us.
Meaning you want to get control of people via appeal to unasailable
authority that can't be challenged because it is supernatural? Moral systems
are not absolute and immutable, and the fact of history is that governments
and others with power, even those supposedly steeped in Christian ethics,
do routinely ignore morality, for the exercise of power.
> Logically, as people only greasy bags of protoplasm, I can see to reason
>not to kill them as mercilessly as I would a fly-or rape and beat them for
>that matter (if I scare them bad enough not to testify, how's it gonna
>hurt me).
And if your religious upbringing taught you that your body was vile
and degenerate, and then, that you, in living in a physical world and having a
corporal being, were denied grace unless you were united with some supposed
Godhead? Now that is some self-fulfilling prophesey! Of course it is alright
for you to kill and rape infidels so that your beliefs can find solice.
> Please explain this to me, I'm afraid my mind has been weakened too long
>by religion- it seems to me "atheistic ethics" are merely a sentimental
>psuedo-religion religion for people too weak to take the immoral nature of
>reality.
Well, excuse me, but morality~=religion, and reality is surely
something you have not demonstrated competance with, as yet.
I have already given an argument that morality does not need
religious support, that it is not absolute, though there are universals,
and that just because your theistic metaphysics is bogus, it doesn't
mean that morals and justice cannot be given basis in a world without
teleology.
Bruce Salem
--
!! Just my opinions, maybe not those of my sponser. !!
Bruce Salem
> Persecution of religions often begins with just this sort of
>fear that "they're taking over."
You are putting words into my mouth. I said recently in this
thread that I do not wish to deny anyone freedom of worship, and that
this right is fundemental to this nation. So please read before you
accuse me of seeking presecution of religion. I do not want people
to push their religious dogma into the politics of the secular state.
That is all, and if it means that the tax-exempt functions of churches
has to be limited, I'm for that.
> Religionists can see the
>unintended humor in this nonsense: no religion in America has anything
>remotely like the unity that would be required to "theocratize" an
>entire society.
You might be right about that. I do remember saying that if a
reactionary pyroxism based on Christianity swept this nation that
more than likely some kind of religious war would break out before
any true theocracy could arrise. But I challenge you to deny that some
important chruches in this country did not attempt to form theocratic
communities and attempt to isolate themselves from the larger secualr
society, and that the Mormons in Utah were a rather significant
attempt at that. Utah did join the Union, but for many years in that
part of the nation, you did not have much political influience unless
you were Mormon.
> The cause of bigotry is always ignorance.
So keep your own house in order and challenge the fools among
you. The fact is, such foolishness is inevatable among the religious.
No matter how reasonable and tolerant most religionists are, there will
always be the spontaneous appearence of extremists who cannot be callenged
because faith itself allows such extremism. There is not self-correcting
mode, no censor to bigotry, by God, or to Know-Nothings, among the
religious.
> Religions do have
>principles they regard as supremely important, but I can assure Bruce
>that if he will actually enter a place of worship he is very unlikely
>to find people talking about taking over the government.
That may be true of most people, but I don't think that you
can deny that any chruch at any time can have peeople who think that
because their reliigous or moral beliefs are superior to the Rule of
Law that they can do radical things to buck the system.
Also, please recall that there is a movement of conservative
churches who have been having great success in trying to take over
the Republican Party, and have staged several local grassroots
campaigns to get conservative candidates elected, many with the
title Reverand. The GOP in California narrowly escaped a takeover
from conservative Christian politicos, early this year.
You are acknowledging a state of affairs which I want to
perserve, but in the scenerio of "It Can't Happen Here." or
"The Handmaid's Tale." that it is best to keep organized religion
realtively weak politically, to defeat political iniatives such
as the Creationists' "Equal Time" laws, and to check the fund raising
power of churches which support political causes.
Bruce Salem
headed for a religious war?
In article <CB35u...@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> dlec...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius A. Lecointe) writes:
>Bruce may or may not be guilty of peddling anti-religious paranoia, but
>history clearly shows that oppression, and persecution, is the often natural
>result of the church obtaining temporal power. I would dare say that it
>is in the rarest of cases that religions have been persecuted by secular
>powers. In most cases religions have been persecuted by those religious
>powers which managed to obtain control of the government or state.
>
>Unfortunately, this is precisely where America is headed and there is
>really nothing you can do to stop it.
>--
>Darius Lecointe God is the answer to a question.
When political privilege is founded on notions that cannot be
challenged by reason, or which pit group against group, or which allow
one group to seek domination over another group, then violence is
more likely to happen, as witness Bosnia.
The value of the secular state is that is tends to minimize
the differences between people which divide them into warring classes
or groups, provided groups are not denied access due to birth or origin.
The sciences tend to emphesize the common heritage of the human species
and to minimize differences due to race and nationality. And differences
due to culture or reliigon do not even figure in its assessment of the
human situation. Its findings can be challenged and tested in a way
that the arbritary divisions due to ethnicity cannot, and the latter
lead inevitably to violence.
The total economic collapse of the U.S. could lead to a break
up of the forces which unify us. The Dark Ages in Europe, a heyday
for the spread of Christianity, were a time when the infrestructure
of the Classical Era was destroyed and politics was reduced to gang
warefare. It wasn't until the rise of the Monarchies and nobility
that the Dark Ages ended. Someone may wish to comment whether the
European Dark Ages were due to economic collapes attended by ecological
diaster. If there is a parallel in the present it is the rise of the
drug gangs in America's inner cities aided by the tribalizing
influience of electronic media such as beepers and the thechnology
we are using at this moment. With these it is possible to maintain
power on a small scale while national power diminishes. Due to the
effects of economic determinism, and possible ecologic disaster, and
decay of the nation, we could indeed see a resurgance of religion as
a source of power. Maybe religious wars would ensue. People's psyches
would fall inward, but the cause is hardly due to spirituality, although
the flight of fancy would look that way to them.
Stephen F. Schaffner
>
> The total economic collapse of the U.S. could lead to a break
>up of the forces which unify us. The Dark Ages in Europe, a heyday
>for the spread of Christianity, were a time when the infrestructure
>of the Classical Era was destroyed and politics was reduced to gang
>warefare. It wasn't until the rise of the Monarchies and nobility
>that the Dark Ages ended.
Bruce, you really should introduce your prejudices to some
facts sometime; I'm sure it would be an interesting meeting. The
Dark Ages were, on average, a time of marked decline for Christianity
both geographically and numerically: the Middle East, North Africa,
Spain, and much of southeastern Europe all came to be dominated by
non-Christian populations (although Christianity did recover modestly
by the end of the period). It was in fact through the infrastructure
of the Roman Empire that Christianity had spread widely.
Mark Rupright
I'm new to this group, and I have been fascinated by the Creationism vs.
Evolution thread going on here. I was especially interested in the
analogy between creationists and bank robbers. It made me think about
the tactics employed by Creationists and the reason why scientists have
so much trouble with them.
Recently, a Creationist came to give a talk here at UNC Chapel Hill at
expense of one of the religious student organizations. I can't remember
the speaker's name, but many of you will know who I'm talking about. He
travels to different universities to "debate" with scientists. His
arrival was preceeded by several letters to the student newspaper calling
for a scientist to successfully defeat him in the debate. When no
scientist accepted the challenge, this was used as an argument that the
speaker was obviously right. Eventually, I think a professor of Geology
accepted the challenge. I hope he fared better than I suspect he did.
Why would a scientist have trouble defending the scientific facts of
evolution?
One reason is that creationists draw their arguments from an extremely
diverse range of disciplines, so that any one scientist would have trouble
pointing out flaws in every argument. A successful defense of evolution
would have to include a physicist, a zoologist, a geneticist, a geologist,
an archeologist, and perhaps more, to point out the flaws in the
creationist's arguments. Why 5 against 1? Easy: any idiot can make up
a scientific lie. It takes very little education in a scientific field
to come up with an argument against the accepted theories of that field.
It takes significantly more knowledge to defend those theories. However,
to an audience who knows little at all about science, the fact that a
creationist can invoke an argument in a certain field makes it look like
he has a great knowledge of that field. Thus, to an audience, one scientist
looks small against the broad range of "knowlege" possessed by the
creationist. A debate of 5 scientists vs. 1 creationist would simply
strengthen this appearance. I would bet a debate between 5 scientists vs.
5 creationists would heavily favor the scientists, since the arguments
made by creationists are generally the same -- 4 more participants would
contribute nothing. Not so strangely, I've never seen this type of debate
proposed by a creationist.
Another reason is the makeup of the audience. Every creationist "debate"
I have seen has taken place in front of a predominantly relgious audience.
For example, the UNC debate I mentioned above, while open to all, was
sponsored by a specific religious organization and thus, the audience would
be mostly members of this organization. Any participant of a debate would
become frazzled if all of the positive audience response went to the
opponent.
One thing that has bothered me is the so-called "scientific creationism."
It seems to me that this title was taken in an effort to get creation back
into school curricula. Scenario:
"Concerned" Citizen: "Why does the school teach evolution but not
creation?"
Principal: Because the Constitution forbids public schools from dispensing
the beliefs of a specific religion.
CC: "But what about "Scientific Creationism?" This should be included in
the science class because it is based on no religion, but explains the
scientific facts in support of creation. By not including this, the
school is unfairly choosing one science over another."
P: Uhhh. I guess we'll have to look into that.
As many previous posts, as well as the sci.skeptic FAQ, have pointed out,
there is no scientific basis for creationism. On the contrary, SC points
out the flaws (often imagined - as in the case of the 2nd law of Thermo.)
in evolution. It contributes no new knowledge to science. Scientists do
not need help in pointing out flaws in a theory. The natural competition
in science does an excellent job of that. Besides, if we actually believed
our knowledge of a scientific field were complete, it would become dead.
The fact that there is flourishing research in evolution shows that it is
very much alive and incomplete. However, an incomplete theory should not
be discarded for that reason alone -- if it were, we'd never accomplish
anything in science since complete theories consistent with experiment and
able to predict something new are rarely, if ever, born that way. The
analogy between creationists and bank robbers is appropriate here. A
security company has its own methods of testing and improving its alarm
system. If a bank robber exploits a flaw in the system (either known or
unknown to the security company) to rob the bank blind, should the thief be
considered a legitimate security consultant to the bank? Similarly, if a
creationist exploits a hole in evolution theory to support a belief of the
origin of the universe which has no scientific basis, should we allow them
to teach this belief as a legitimate alternative to evolution? Of course
not.
Oh, well, its late. <off my soapbox>
______________________________________________________________________________
Mark Rupright | "Contratiwise, if it was so, it might be; and if it
UNC Physics | were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.
rupr...@physics.unc.edu | That's logic." Lewis Carroll
Tero Sand
In article <1993Jul30.1...@martha.utcc.utk.edu> ke...@panacea.phys.utk.edu (Kelly Dowd) writes:
> Logically, as people only greasy bags of protoplasm, I can see to reason
>not to kill them as mercilessly as I would a fly-or rape and beat them for
>that matter (if I scare them bad enough not to testify, how's it gonna
>hurt me).
May I start from you? Pretty please?
--
Tero Sand, 2 kyu ! Science is a process of enlarging one's
! ignorance to dizzying heights.
EMail: cus...@cc.helsinki.fi ! - D.C.Lindsay in talk.origins
cus...@cc.helsinki.fi !
Sami Kukkonen
>However, theories can be proven to be false ---
> --- creation theory. This theory may not be absolutely correct,
>but it serves as a much better model than does evolution.s
I'm sorry to see you didn't understand the point of
my article. The point was: creationism is a religious
belief, not a scientific theory. And it is a belief
just because it CANNOT be proven to be false.
Think about it. How could you possibly disprove my belief
that Great Pumpkin created the universe 3 seconds ago?
And remember, GP created everything just as you see it,
including your memories of the past.
--
kukk...@niksula.hut.fi/ Everything in this article is factual, and any
kukk...@unda.fi / resemblance to actual persons, places or organizations
< Ardbeg > / living, dead or drunk, is purely intentional.
Michael Ladomery
...
> But I guess my problem is I have such a weak mind. I just don't
>see how a universe divested of an imposed moral order (via say God or Karma
>or whatever) leads one to conclude that morality is anything more than
>an invention of governments and priests in order to control us.
You may well be close to the truth.
> Logically, as people only greasy bags of protoplasm, I can see to reason
>not to kill them as mercilessly as I would a fly-or rape and beat them for
>that matter (if I scare them bad enough not to testify, how's it gonna
>hurt me).
I fail to understand the logic.
The realization that people are made up of the same materials as a fly does
not diminish the value of human life (to other humans). Perhaps I misunderstand
you, but I can assure you that while atheists/agnostics may in their lifetimes
squash a fly, the vast, vast majority wouldn't contemplate murder.
> Please explain this to me, I'm afraid my mind has been weakened too long
>by religion- it seems to me "atheistic ethics" are merely a sentimental
>psuedo-religion religion for people too weak to take the immoral nature of
>reality.
I'd be really interested to understand what you mean by the "immoral nature
of reality".
Tero Sand
>anti-science zealots, seem inexplicably to fail to understand
>is that *scientists* can be trusted (in fact can be counted on)
>to try to find holes in existing theories and to try to establish
>new ones. Sorry to shatter your cherished myths of Grand Conspiracies
>of Evil Atheistic Scientists trying to Suppress Dissent and Truth,
>but the reality is far different. As a scientist about to get
>my PhD, I can tell you that I would *love* to overturn an existing
>paradigm. To find a fatal flaw in an existing theory and to establish
>my own that might stand for years, decades, or centuries -- would be
>to "write my own ticket", to say the very least.
Or, as Dr. Pepper once wrote,
"Stoning non conformists is part of science. Stoning conformists is
also part of science. Only those theories that can stand up to a
merciless barrage of stones deserve consideration. It is the
creationist habit of throwing marshmallows that we find annoying."
Tero Sand
>In article <23fj2h$a...@fido.asd.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>In article <1993Aug1.0...@midway.uchicago.edu>, azle...@deirdre.uchicago.edu (asia z lerner) writes:
>>|> In article <23fg7m$9...@fido.asd.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>|> >And are you nominating this as one of the "problems" with evolution
>>|> >that Creationists have identified?
>>|> >
>>|> >jon.
>>|>
>>|> Is this a rhetorical question?
>>|>
>>
>>Is this a tap dance?
>>
>>jon.
>
>No, a tap dance is much more interesting. I am tuning out of this discussion.
>Have a good evolution, Mr. Livesey.
And there goes yet another AE (dunno if he's T or not) without producing
any evidence against evolution[ary theory].
Sad.
asia z lerner
Now nothing. There is a valid problem with claiming empirical status for
such entities. That's all I said. I DO NOT think that they should be
disqualified because of that.
asia z lerner
>In article <1993Aug1.2...@midway.uchicago.edu> azle...@amber.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>I have to admit that I'm having trouble following your point, both in
>general and in this sub-thread. Your original claim,
>I take it, was that creationists deserve a hearing because the result
>would somehow produce better (more varied? more interesting?) science.
>Why you think that to be the case I don't know, since I haven't figured
>out what you think the aim of science is, but leave that aside for now.
>More specifically, you claimed that creationists would (and do) raise
>problems that conventional scientists would otherwise be ignorant of or
>ignore.
Or, more simply, highlight/discuss/analize the legitimate problems of
science. And I did say "some creationists". I am perfectly ready to admit
that others will attack science on invalid grounds, or just badly.
In order to evaluate this claim, I'd like to have some idea of
>what the contributions of the creationists might be (which shouldn't be
>too hard to determine, since they've been raising a fairly consistent
>set of objections for several decades now). That the problems raised
>would be genuine ones, you argued, is probable given the assumption that
>creationists are not perverse, because they would naturally raise
>problems already discovered by conventional scientists.
My point was that since there are genuine problem creationists would tend
to use them, rather than overlook them.
Even if
>this argument is valid, of course, it does nothing to demonstrate
>the usefulness
>of having creationists rather than the conventional scientists pose
>the problems, so it doesn't help me at all.
Thats an argument for not breeding creationists (though Feyerabend thinks
that we should), but why not let the ones who are already around
do the job (raise questions, as I explained). It's
really an elementary psychological point - they are interested to prove that
evolution is wrong, aren't they? More interested than an everage
Origin-thumping evolutionist, though I agree with what somebody said that disproving a theory is a plum for a scientist, too. Still, they don't make it their
life purpose. Thus it makes every sense for creationists to attack
evolutionary theory at its weak points. And since such an attack should
provoke, from evolutionists, a response of trying to solve the problem,
the explanatory scope of the evolutionary theory should become clearer,
wether the problem is solved or not.
Next you provided an
>example of a problem that has actually been raised by a creationist,
>the problem of the time scale of evolution. Now if you are simply
>raising the point that it's harder to study processes that take place
>very slowly (and, often, at a great distance in time from the observer)
>than it is to study those that are more recent and that take place on
>human time scales, I won't argue with you. What I still don't see,
>however, is what role the creationists have, since geologists and
>biologists (among others) are already acutely aware of
>the difficulties (they're the ones who are actually trying to overcome
>them after all).
I think that it's still the case that most/many scientists are interested
in defending the validity of their overall paradigm, rather than attacking it.
As with this particular example, all I was trying to say is that the
creationist raised a valid point about empirical status. It's hardly a
contradiction to say that others raised it, too. This is a tangled thread,
but I seem to remember that I was challenged to show that creationists
could ever make sense. I gave an example of a sensible critique.
What the creationist means when he makes
>this argument,
What creationist means is not necessarily important. If he can bring about
the investment of time in a genuinly priblematic area, he has a positive
impact.
however, and what you may mean,
is that no valid
>study of such processes is possible, which I think is indeed a silly
>position to take.
I do not mean it, and the psychological state of the creationist is not
necessarily important, as I just said.
>
>>There is so little raw data in something like the description of the
>>sub-atomic world that people have no problem admitting to the hypothetical
>>nature of the structures they are talking about, rather than claim
>>empirical status for them. Silly? Tell it to Bas Van Fraasen.
>
>This is an aside, but quite a lot of raw data go into the description
>of the sub-atomic world. I presume you mean that the data are not
>gathered directly by our senses. I really don't see what difference
>that makes; yes, our description of sub-atomic physics consists of
>theoretical constructs based on data, but so does our description of
>the solar system, or of North America. Do you mean that if we
>send an observer into orbit and he sees North America, it has empirical
>status, but if we send a camera into orbit and take a picture, North
>America has a hypothetical nature? (By the way, I don't know who you
>mean by "people", but probably most physicists would be of the opinion
>that electrons are no more hypothetical than are tables.)
Perhaps instead of "raw" I should have used the word "uninterpreted".
There is little "uninterpreted" data that could be evidence for things
"as they really are", independent of our theories.
>--
>Steve Schaffner ssc...@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
Mark Isaak
> Logically, as people only greasy bags of protoplasm, I can see to reason
>not to kill them as mercilessly as I would a fly-or rape and beat them for
Would you like to live in a society where such behavior is common?
If so, I'm sure I could find some theocracies which would suit your
desire for brutality.
Morals arise when people realize that they live with other people.
A set of standards which doesn't take this into account is bound to
be immoral, whether it is based on the decrees of an individual or
of a God.
--
Mark Isaak "There lives more faith in honest doubt,
is...@aurora.com Believe me, than in half the creeds." - Tennyson
Stan Friesen
|> >
|> >Yep, thought so. You do not understand the principles of evolutionary
|> >theory.
|> >
|> >There is no 'principle of adaption'. There *is* a principle
|> >of natural selection,
|>
|>
|> There is a notion that species adapt to their environment. If its missing
|> from your concept of evolution, than you are talking about a highly individual
|> interpretation of it.
You have jumped the gun a little here, see what I say below.
But to reiterate - there is no *independent* principle
of adaptation, only a corollary of the principle of natural
selection.
Also, it is probably a little misleading to talk about a species
adapting to its environment, as if there were some unitary entity
there that 'did' something to accomplish adaptation.
A species is, in certain senses, just a collection (set)
of individual organisms. Its properties are the gestalt
of the properties of the the individual organisms that
comprise it.
I would rather say that through natural selection a species
(or population) tends to become more adapted to its environment.
[Note the passive formulation, and the incorporation of natural
selection into the statement - also notice the use of the word
"tend"].
|> > which is that existing variants which
|> >happen to produce more surviving offspring than others will
|> >tend to become more common.
|> >
|> >A corollary, or implication, of this principle, is that, overall
|> >*populations* of organisms will tend to become fairly well
|> >adapted to their local environment. But organisms themselves
|> >do *not* necessarily change to become more adapted.
|>
|> In my previous quote, I clearly did not mean that the individual
|> organism changes throughout the course of it's life. I meant that
|> the morphological structure definitive of the specie changes. And that
|> meaning is pretty obvious.
You still missed the point. It is natural selection that is
primary, and adaptation is secondary to it. The issue of time
scale (individual vs. populational) is less important than the
issue of teleology that your original formulation implied.
Furthermore, *survival* has nothing to do with evolution, the
key factor is *reproduction* (successful reproduction that is),
which you also missed, and seem to continue ot miss.
But your presentation was clearly sloppy, it would have been
clearer if you used "population of organisms" or "species"
instead of the bare word "organism".