On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:52:59 -0700 (MST), Denis Lamoureux wrote:
[...]
DL>Why is it that many of the world's leading (and vocal) opponents
>of evolution are from non-biological disciplines?
>
>Henry Morris--hydraulic engineer
>John Morris--engineer
>Hugh Ross--astronomy
>Phil Johnson--lawyer
I am glad that Denis has listed YECs like "Henry Morris" and "John
Morris" together with OECs like "Hugh Ross" and "Phil Johnson". This
illustrates that it is not only YECs who are "leading (and vocal)
opponents of evolution".
"Phil Johnson" is an "opponent of" *Darwinian blind watchmaker*
"evolution" because when on sabbatical in England he read Dawkins'
The Blind Watchmaker, and as a Professor of Law, specialising in the
logical of argument, he was amazed at the weakeness of Dawkins'
argument.
BH>If any of their followers had a sore tooth, I am sure they would
>find a dentist. But why do they trust the assessment of biological
>origins by these non-biologists?
This is an oversimplification. Darwinism is not just an theory of
"biological origins" - it is also the creation myth of our culture:
"Darwinist evolution is an imaginative story about who we are and
where we came from, which is to say it is a creation myth. As such
it is an obvious starting point for speculation about how we ought to
live and what we ought to value. A creationist appropriately starts
with God's creation and God's will for man. A scientific naturalist
just as appropriately starts with evolution and with man as a product
of nature." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, p133).
BH>Oh, oh . . . was that a 'priestly robes' argument??? Awaiting the
>BELL to ring ;-)
The problem for Denis is that even those with biological "priestly"
(even cardinal) "robes" are "vocal opponents of evolution"
(ie. Neo-Darwinist macroevolution):
For example, Pierre Grasse, Zoologist and ex-president of the French
Academy of Sciences:
"The book of Pierre P. Grasse is a frontal attack on all kinds of
"Darwinism." Its purpose is "to destroy the myth of evolution,
as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon," and to show
that evolution is a mystery about which little is, and perhaps
can be, known. Now one can disagree with Grasse but not ignore
him. He is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the
editor of the 28 volumes of Traite de Zoologie, author of
numerous original investigations, and ex-president of the
Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is
encyclopedic." Dobzhansky T., book review of Grasse P.P.,
"Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977 in Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
Trial", 1993, p174)
Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of
Natural History:
"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view,
or let's call it a non-evolutionary view, was last year I had a
sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was
working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and
something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had
been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one
thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one
can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with
me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory.
Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me..." (Patterson
C., Address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York
City, 5 November 1981).
Lynn Margulis, Professor of Biology at the University of
Massachusetts:
"Lynn Margulis is highly respected for her widely accepted theory
that mitochondria, the energy source of plant and animal cells,
were once independent bacterial cells. And Lynn' Margulis says
that history will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as "a minor
twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious
persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology."(Mann C., "Lynn Margulis:
Science's Unruly Earth Mother," Science, 252, 1991, 378-381). At
one of her many public talks she asks the molecular biologists in
the audience to name a single, unambiguous example of the
formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her
challenge goes unmet. Proponents of the standard theory, she
says, "wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive,
cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin-having mistaken him....
Neo-Darwinism, which insists on (the slow accrual of mutations),
is in a complete funk." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box", 1996,
p26)
Even Stephen Jay Gould:
"I well remember how the synthetic theory beguiled me with its
unifying power when I was a graduate student in the mid-1960's.
Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel as a universal
description of evolution. The molecular assault came first,
followed quickly by renewed attention to unorthodox theories of
speciation and by challenges at the level of macroevolution
itself. I have been reluctant to admit it-since beguiling is
often forever-but if Mayr's characterization of the synthetic
theory is accurate, then that theory, as a general proposition,
is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook
orthodoxy."(Gould S.J., "Is a new and general theory of evolution
emerging?", Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p120)
On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 15:21:32 +1000 (EST), Peter Grice wrote:
GM>Ian Plimer, a member of the Australian Research Council and
>professor of geology at Newcastle University, reported that PCI is
>not accredited or authorized to grant degrees. Plimer stated, "Any
>degrees from this 'College' are illegal in Australia and are clearly
>being used fraudulently in the U.S.A.[28]
PG>I enjoyed your post but would like to mention that Ian Plimer's
>contributions should be taken with a grain of salt. His views are
>tainted by hatred of Creationism, doing violence to the objective
>cause. He has a tendancy to use ad hominum arguments, together with
>emotive and exaggerated language oftentimes in place of facts. I
>write to you from Australia, and I would seriously doubt at face
>value his claim that degrees from Pacific College are /illegal/
>here. That is a word that seems to me not to fit.
As another Australian, I would second what Peter says here. While
Plimer's criticisms of some creationist degrees are probably
warranted, he is so evidently violently anti-creationist that he
cannot be relied upon to be objective. He recently made the wildest
of allegations against the Creation Science Foundation here, and
there were found to be false by an independent Committee chaired by
a former Chief Magistrate of New South Wales, and current part-time
Commissioner with the New South Wales Crime Commission. The
Committee found:
---------------------------------------------------------
We, the undersigned, have come together in Brisbane at the request of
the Creation Science Foundation. We accepted an invitation by CSF to
constitute a committee to investigate certain allegations against CSF in
the book by Ian Plimer, Telling Lies for God.
This book makes a series of grave allegations against CSF and some of
its directors in ethical matters, including deliberate lying, deception,
financial impropriety and scientific fraud.
As CSF operates as an evangelical Christian ministry to the Australian
community, and to communities world-wide, the allegations, if true, are
serious matters of public concern.
CSF claims that not only are these accusations completely without
foundation, but that they form part of a documentable pattern of
systematic ethical abuse aimed at the ministry of CSF.
We were not asked to examine CSF's theological position which, as
individuals from evangelical churches of different denominations, we may
or may not share in all respects. Furthermore, we were not concerned to
make an assessment of CSF* management style or a judgment as to the
validity of the scientific arguments of creation versus evolution, except
in-so-far as they related to allegations of deliberate scientific fraud.
Full co-operation was extended to us by CSF who provided access to all
of its building and permitted us to meet there and to speak with people,
including the current auditors of CSF. All documents and other material
asked for by the committee were provided by CSF.
Both before and in the course of its formal meetings, the committee
examined a great deal of material, in particular:
1. The details of the allegations as contained in the book Telling Lies for
God.
2. Detailed CSF responses (in note form) to the matters contained in
Telling Lies for God.
3. Material and source documents, a number of which constitute hard
evidence' independent of the parties.
4. Copies of apologies by media organisations who have previously
published allegations by Ian Plimer which were subsequently found to be
untrue.
5. A list of past and present speakers used in Australia by CSF, together
with their curricula vitae.
HAVING CONCLUDED OUR INVESTIGATIONS, WE CONCLUDE
AS FOLLOWS:
A. The grave allegations and/or innuendo against the ethics of CSF and
its Directors are not supported by the evidence. What the evidence does
establish is that CSF and its Directors have been often, and seriously,
misrepresented.
B. CSF conducts its affairs in an appropriately open and thoroughly
principled and ethical manner as befits a Christian ministry seeking to
advance the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
(Signed by all six, 27th April 1995- photocopies available on request with
stamped, self-addressed envelope.)
("Prayer News", Creation Science Foundation: Brisbane, May 1995, p4)
---------------------------------------------------------
On of Plimer's tactics is to try to enlist support by non-YEC
Christians in attacking the CSF. One of these he duped was the Rev.
Gordon Moyes, who when he found out that Plimer's charges were false,
publically disassociated himself from Plimer:
---------------------------------------------------------
We previously commented (Prayer News, May 1995) on the false Plimer
allegations against CSF aired on the 2GB radio program hosted by the
Rev. Gordon Moyes.
After previous lack of success by CSF, a personal approach from Clarrie
Briese resulted in a meeting between himself, Rev. Moyes, and CSF's Dr
Carl Wieland to discuss the independent committee's findings.
Following frank and cordial discussions, Rev. Moyes read out a
statement on 2GB on August 27, effectively accepting and endorsing the
independent committee's findings. His closing comment concerning the
ethical charges was, 'The charges were false and Professor Plimer has the
problem of trying to justify how it was he made those statements.'
("Prayer News", Creation Science Foundation: Brisbane, November 1995,
p3)
---------------------------------------------------------
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------