On Tue, 16 Apr 1996 09:20:02 -0700 you wrote to Denis Lamoureux:
DL>Why was it that it was people with little to next
>to no training in the clinical sciences that were making the greatest
>noise against flouride?
MB>Because they were being forced to drink it.
The flouridation analogy actually defeats Denis' argument. The vast
majority of ordinary people believe in flouridation of their water
supply after it is explained to them. Proof of this in our State when
a very popular and lovable State Premier with an enormous personal
following, opposed flouridation. He was forced to back down because
it was so electorally popular with the majority.
But even today, after decades of Darwinist teaching, the vast majority
of ordinary people don't believe in Darwinist macro-evolution even
after it has been explained to them. Indeed, some outstanding
scientists (eg. Grasse, Paterson, Hoyle, etc) who are in full
possession of the facts, are decidedly sceptical about it.
DL>In a way it all boils down to information, and whether the amateurs
>(both scientific and theological) are going to have the humility to
>acknowledge they are making assertions well beyond the limits of their
>knowledge and expertise.
This perpetuates the myth that the experts all agree and that "the
amateurs" can't read the King's English. Or perhaps it assumes that
all Darwinist authors (eg. Gould, Dawkins, Goodwin, etc), who write
for the layman audience, have a congenital inability to express
themselves? Sounds like priestly mumbo-jumbo to this layman ! :-)
MB>Experts have been wrong big time before. Experts in science have
>pronounced things that were harmful to be safe, and things that were safe to
>be harmful. Experts in theology have done the same. Why don't we turn your
>point of view on its head and ask, if the experts can't make a convincing
>case to people on a matter that has absolutely no bearing on their day-to-day
>lives, why should they believe them?
The problem is that the "the experts can't make a convincing case" and
we don't "believe them". Indeed the one thing that is clear is that
Darwinists all seem to disagree with each other, not only on minor
details but *on fundamentals*. Obviously one expects some diversity
among scientists but mostly this should be over comparatively minor
details. At times scientists have disagreed about fundamentals but
these are usually resolved in a few years and then that science
marches on.
But Darwinist macro-evolution is surely unique in science in that 130
years after it was founded it still hasn't reached a consensus on
*how* (ie. by what mechanism) it happened. It is the only science I
know that has to constantly claim that it is a "fact", prompting the
sceptical thought that if it is, why does it need to keep saying it?
No doubt some Darwinists will respond with ad hominem comments, which
in itself is an argument against Darwinism! :-)
God bless.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------