On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 21:53:30 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
[...]
>SJ>In the case of origins, the line between "myth" and "science"
>becomes blurred. Sagan, after recounting These are some of the last
>"fifteen billion years of cosmic evolution", admits:
>"It has the sound of epic myth, and rightly. But it is simply a
>description of cosmic evolution as revealed by the science of our
>time." (Sagan C., "Cosmos", Macdonald: London, 1981, pp337-338)
PM>That it has the sound of epic myth does not make it one. Of
>course Sagan is correct to point out that unlike myth, evolution is
>revealed by science.
It is interesting that you now accept that "cosmic evolution" is
"evolution". We *are* making progress! ;-)
My point was that *in the case of origins*, the line between "myth"
and "science" becomes blurred. This is seen by the fact that when
Sagan writes a "description of cosmic evolution as revealed by...
science" it has "the sound of epic myth".
Wilson admits that out that *in the case of origins*, "evolution" as
"revealed by science" is a form of creation myth:
"How much of this can be believed? Every generation needs its own
creation myths, and these are ours. They are probably more accurate
than any that have come before, but they are undoubtedly subject to
revision as we find out more about the nature and the history of
life." (Wilson E.O., et al., "Life on Earth", 1973, p624)
Landau pointed out that much of the "science" of human "evolution"
is presented in the form of a hero myth:
"...as Boston University anthropologist Misia Landau suggests,
materialists have often been guilty of a rather nonmaterial view of
human origins as the inevitable progress of the hero, the apelike
creature who undertakes a tortuous journey, leaving the safety of the
trees for the grassy savanna and through ice ages and other hazards
finally reaches a state of human civilization." (Lewin R., "In the
Age of Mankind", 1988, p20) (Templeton J.M. & Herrmann R.L., "Is God
the Only Reality?", 1994, p120)
>PM>Why the need to redefine words to suggest that there is no
>>difference between a creation myth based on unprovable assumptions
>>of a super natural being and a story of evolution (which is btw not
>>creation, a common confusion)?
>SJ>Where have I "redefined words"? I am merely point out that "the
>Darwinian theory of [macro] evolution" functions as a creation-myth.
>That's why you are here debating it! If it was just another
>scientific theory, you wouldn't bother.
PM>There is where you and the people you quoted disagree with you.
>Naming it a creation myth does not make it similar to the
>'traditional myth' especially since both quoted researchers
>mentioned that it is based on scientific evidence.
No doubt the "traditional myths" were also based on the "scientific
evidence" of that time. But my main point was that "Darwinian...
macro evolution...*functions* as a creation-myth".
>PM>A bit dated isn't it? However such quotes, however interesting,
>>do not further a scientific discussion either.
>SJ>Berlinski notes this "dated" defence is a favorite tactice of
>Darwinists:
PM>Dated research per se need not be wrong but given the fact of fast
>scientific discoveries they do tend to lose their relevance.
Well then, your argument should be to cite those "scientific
discoveries", not just claim that old quotes are "dated".
>SJ>Unfortunately for your argument, truth doesn't get "dated" with the
>mere passage of time. You need to show that since "1943" "severe
>methodological criticism..." *has* "been brought to bear on
>evolutionary speculation."
PM>This assumes of course that the statement was truthful. I am
>pointing out that much could have changed in the last 50 years or
>so.
Pointing out that it "could have changed" is not good enough. You
need to show that it *has* "changed in the last 50 years or so." I
repeat, "You need to show that since "1943" "severe methodological
criticism..." *has* "been brought to bear on evolutionary
speculation."
I'll give you a little test that Art posted before your time and
which all the evotionists without exception flunked. But first note
this teacher-pupil dialogue portrayed by Kerkut:
'Well, now, if you really understand an argument you will be able to
indicate to me not only the points in favour of the argument but also
the most telling points against it.'
'I suppose so, sir.'
'Good. Please tell me, then, some of the evidence against the theory
of Evolution.'
'Against what, sir?'
'The theory of Evolution.'
'But there isn't any sir.'
- Master-pupil dialogue quoted by Professor G. A. Kerkut, of the
University of Southampton, in The Implications of Evolution"
(Kerkut G. A., "Implications of Evolution", Pergamon Press:
London, pp4,5)
(Hitching F., "The Neck of the Giraffe", 1982, p9)
To test whether "since "1943" "severe methodological criticism..."
*has* "been brought to bear on evolutionary speculation", my question
to you (and all the other evolutionists), is:
"Please tell me, then, some of the evidence against the theory
of Evolution."
Regards.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------