It seems to me that the scientific community does a very poor job of
presenting it's case against creationist ideas. I believe that evolution has
taken place, but I cannot seem to wrap my arms around any clearly stated
theory and really believe that fits all the facts. The "rants" as you call
them, are all I really see offered up. Those are always about the apparent
"fact" of evolution and then then POOF! "Darwin's Theory "(whatever it has
evolved to this month) is given as "Q.E.D."
"We dig up bones and this is what we see" -- that fact.
The explanation for how this comes about is a theory. If one constrains all
explanations to be "naturalistic" by definition, then of course the theory is
naturalistic. But has it been substantiated? I think that the referenced
article below makes more sense than the :rants"
Just because only "naturalistic theories can be taught in public schools does
not mean that it is necessary to teach such theories when a substantial
percentage of people think that it is incorrect. (And in college, anything
goes.)
Jay Willingham wrote:
> The June 18, 2002, Scientific American article by editor in chief John =
> Rennie started out in a confrontational, condescending manner worthy of =
> the op/ed pages: "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense-Opponents of =
> evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real =
> science, but their arguments don't hold up"
>
> His opening goes on in a pretty supercilious tone when he says,=20
>
> "Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically =
> advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still =
> persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a =
> flawed, poorly supported fantasy."
>
> So "politicians, judges and ordinary citizens" are still rubes devoid of =
> understanding of the true mysteries they can find only with the guidance =
> of scientists? =20
>
> No wonder some have called psychiatrists the "new clergy". =20
>
> Also calls to mind the technocrats who rule a Marxist landscape.=20
>
> No wonder it has set off a firestorm of commentary. This is good.
>
> SA and National Geographic's reported copyright infringement threats =
> against creationist published replies simply fuels the fires. Sells =
> magazines.
>
> Some of the counter-arguments of folks like Bill Hoesch at =
> http://www.icr.org/headlines/rennie.html are pretty good, at least as =
> good as some of Rennie's.
>
> Let the debate rage on!
>
> Jay
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 17 2002 - 10:42:13 EDT