> Greetings and Salutations,
>
> Thomas Moore is sick of my empty rhetoric.
I should point out that I didn't send my last msg to the reflector.
>
> He writes:
> >Gee, maybe it was because of lack of good data in geochronology and
> >paleontology? If all this data is just now hitting the press, what data
> >did these people have before? Not much.
>
> Stephen Jay Gould writes that stasis in the fossil record was the
> "trade secret of paleontology". How long did this evidence have to
> accumulate before members of the evolutionary community began to
> admit that "some other mechanism" besides "artifact theory" had to
> be responsible for the gaps in the fossil record? By my reckoning,
> about 120 years. Are you seriously suggesting that all of a sudden,
> about twenty years ago, a flood of new fossils was found and PRESTO!
> "artifact theory" was no longer tenable? That is simply ludicrous.
> What happened was a new generation of evolutionists who were sufficiently
> secure in their atheism no longer felt the need for a ready response
> to those who might point to gaps in the fossil record as evidence against
> evolution.
120 isn't that long considering how long something much more simple to
see in the geological record, that continents move, took to be accepted
(and it was rightly rejected at the time, and when the right evidence
came along).
>
> He continues:
> >Divine intervention is still not an answer. "Artifact theory," as you
> >put it, is a real problem. How data is analyzed for trends must account
> >for these problems. To say that the earlier workers were somehow
> >"dishonest" for not saying the raw trends were real is dishonest. Until
> >the magnitude of these errors could be assessed, no trends could be
> >established anyway. I think the early workers were absolutely correct in
> >being concervative, and I think they rightly accepted the trends as the
> >data came in. Divine intervention is rightly minimized in science, but
> >if it is minimized outside science, that's religion's problem, not science's.
>
> I object to evolutionists portraying "theory" as fact. When they said and
> taught that life had originated in a "prebiotic soup", they were teaching
> the "best naturalistic explanation available", not anything that was even
> reasonably supported by the evidence. It IS dishonest to portray an idea as
> fact. Especially if that idea is used in public schools as materialist
> propaganda.
>
I don't know of anyone who considers abiogenesis a "fact." But then I
don't see a preamble to every theory saying that this is the "best
naturalistic explanation available." Evolution theory is not a "fact."
The paleontological record of change of life throught time _is_ a fact.
These data are not just an idea. I do think, though, that the media has
trouble in understanding how to present information to the masses (what
scientists call "the cringe factor").
> As a side note, Thomas here illustrates exactly what I mean by "lying" when
> I talk about evolutionists. He says, "Divine intervention is still not an
> answer". Does he support this with any evidence? No. All he does is
> present a personal opinion as fact.
>
I think this is also a lie. Rob, here said I was presenting that "Divine
intervention is still not an answer" as fact. All I did was make a
statement, and I didn't argue it. Do I have to preamble everything I say
with the statement "this is opinion" and "this is fact?" If so, I think
Rob needs to apologize to me for not clearly informing me and the rest of
us for not clearly telling us with is his opinion and what is fact.
As for "divine intervention," it is my opinion and the opinion of most
scientists. "God did it" is not an answer and never will be, not while
you're doing science. You're more than welcome to insert "God did it"
any time you want outside science. I can see it now - "why did the
bridge fall? God did it." It might be true, but it certainly isn't a
scientific answer.
> He continues
> >Many athiest acknowedge the possibility of God and that they assume that
> >God doesn't directly involve Himself in the natural world. It is a
> >reasonable assumption. If God did directly involve Himself, what's the
> >point of trying to understand the natural world? It can change anytime.
> >You're more than welcome to invoke God at a philosophical point _after_
> >the research is done, but not while you're doing it.
>
> Again, I object to the presentation of theories formulated with
> naturalistic asssumptions as fact. They are quite entitled to formulate
> the best naturalistic theory they can, as long as they admit the problems
> with validation and do not try and base public policy on these ideas.
>
The data are the facts, whether they were collected with naturalistic or
theistic assumptions.
> He continues:
> >Many "evolutionists" are Christian, are you saying that these people are
> >arguing against the existance of God when, at the same time, they believe
> >in God?
>
> I have said many times that I think that theistic evolutionists are
> contradicting themselves. They believe that Christianity is compatible
> with strictly naturalistic evolution. I don't.
>
They don't believe in strictly naturalistic evolution. They use
naturalistic assumptions when doing the science, but outside that they
certainly believe God had a role.
> He writes:
> >Hehe, I wouldn't call science a "truth."
>
> Neither would I.
>
> He continues:
> >The "facts" stay the same no matter if you believe in God or not. In
> >either case, science's job is knowledge about the _natural_ world. It
> >isn't about making public policy. What is done with that knowledge is a
> >matter of public policy. There is no rule set anywhere saying that if
> >scientists think evolution is true, then public policy must set-up a
> >system that acts evolution-like. If the system that set-up the moral
> >behavior is failing because it can't handle the "facts," that is a
> >problem. But it's a problem of that moral system, not the facts.
>
> But when the "facts" are actually the best naturalistic explanation
> available in disguise you are setting up a system which excludes
> religious principle from rational discourse. As history has shown,
> such systems have a tendency towards violence, anarchy and brutality.
> (i.e. Nazi Germany, "Enlightened" France, communist Russia just to
> name a few)
>
Christianity has a bad track record as well. Even Hitler wrote that he
was doing what he wa doing for God. Remember witch buring, crusades,
Northern Ireland, slavery in the US, KKK, etc etc? By your own
standards, Christians should stop claiming they have the "facts" or
"truth."
As I said before, the systems are in no way bound to set themselves up
under what science has accomplished. Indeed, I am very much opposed to
that wierd political group that runs on the fact they are all
scientists.
> He writes:
> >I think the deficiencies in the theistic explanations are much larger.
> >They still explain nothing - just that God did it. God could have done
> >it any way he wanted from the gambit of abiogenesis to special creation.
> >If you have an infinite number of explanations (more so than evolution),
> >is it really the best explanation?
>
> The question here is: Who has the burden of proof when discussing the theory
> of evolution? This is a subject I will be adressing in a post next week.
>
When discusing earth history and origins, etc., both sides have the exact
same burdens.
> He concludes:
> >You've convinced me that you or creationists don't have a track record that's
> >any better. Along with all the other lies creationists have told - i.e
> >human teeth at Paluxy, human tracks at Paluxy, Noah's Ark hoaxes, human
> >fingers, etc etc etc, you should really re-evaluate your own views.
>
> I disagree with young earth creationists. I wish they would just say
> "you have to take it on faith" and leave it at that.
>
> >Let me leave you with this thought. You, and all types of creationists,
> >have an extra burden. You are arguing a moral code while you are arguing
> >science. But creationists are just as bad, by your standards (much worse
> >by mine), which makes the whole argument regarding the morals you're
> >fighting for into a comical farce. As you argue for "Christian ideals"
> >while violating those ideals, you defeat yourself. Worse, you defeat
> >others who _are_ acting within the limits of those ideals (I apologize to
> >the rest of the creationists on the reflector for my gross generalization
> >of creationists above).
>
> This doesn't seem very well thought out. If one believes and argues for
> a materialist world view, then one must acknowledge that certain moral
> propositions accompany this view. Moral relativism, for example, is
> a straightforward consequence of believing in materialism. Atheists, then,
> also argue a moral code. (I am here asserting that no moral code is a moral
> code of a sort.)
>
Of course, I'm not arguing one moral system over another. Moral codes
within science are only those that limit how science can be done (human
testing, for example). I should also point out that athiests do have a
moral code (not a lack of one). They just don't believe in God. Moral
relativism, outside of one's personal opinion (i.e. school taught), is
public policy, not science.
Science has a system set-up to limit the what can be done, how it can be
done, how to report what was done etc. This is the system of science -
it isn't perfect, but it works. But back to my point, when Christians
inject their religious views while they're doing science and they are
caught doing things that violate what Christianity stands for, you damage
both science and Christianity. This is true for any other system you try
to inject into science, but more so for religions that have very clearly
defined rules - such as the ten commandments.
Tom
*****************************************************************************
*** Thomas L. Moore mooret@gas.uug.arizona.edu ***
*** Paleoclimatology Research Lab. mooret@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu ***
*** Department of Geosciences mooret@ccit.arizona.edu ***
*** University of Arizona ***
*****************************************************************************