|
|
 |
|
|
|
register |
bbs |
search |
rss |
faq |
about
|
|
|
meet up |
add to del.icio.us |
digg it
|
|
|
|
GEnie messages about Scientific American, Creation
______________________________________________________________________________
Public Forum * NonProfit Connection - TopicDigest - Copyright © 1991 (GEnie)
______________________________________________________________________________
The PF*NPC on GEnie archives "digest" versions of inactive topics, paring
them down to useful and entertaining information you can use. Turn to
the PF*NPC Library for your research needs on issues of public concern!
______________________________________________________________________________
************
Topic 4 Mon Nov 12, 1990
P.LANDT [Peggy] at 23:55 EST
Sub: Scientific American, Anti-Faith?
I read with disbelief an article stating that Scientific American had denied
a well-educated and qualified person an editorship because of his profession
of Christian faith. What is going on here? Persecution
************
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 1 Mon Nov 12, 1990
P.LANDT [Peggy] at 23:59 EST
Did anyone see coverage of this scandal in the national press? The charter
of Scientific American Magazine expresses faith in God. How about some input
input? Many of our greatest scientists have been persons of faith. Why would
this cause a person to be denied any position? Aren't there laws regarding
this? Who's next?
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 2 Tue Nov 13, 1990
D.LAME [Dave] at 00:40 EST
Interestingly enough, this subject just came up in the religion and
ethics RT. It is in Cat 12, Top 7 (I may have the numbers wrong. It is in
the "Religion and Science" category. The topic is "Understanding the
Creation Model" and it occurs somewhere around the 150s.) Apparently, what
happened was that a man with whom SA had a contract to do some articles
expressed his beliefs as a creationist. On those grounds, he was
disqualified from writing for the magazine.
That is a very sketchy account. I would like to know more about the
topic. Peggy, if you could, could you elaborate on what you heard, and
where?
If anyone has more information, I would be interested in hearing it.
Dave
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 3 Fri Nov 16, 1990
A.CONNOR [Crazy Horse] at 04:50 EST
Ditto the request for more info.
I can certainly understand prohibiting a believer of "Creation Science" from
writing about biology....
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 4 Sat Nov 17, 1990
CHERNOFF [Paul] at 10:31 EST
I have read a bit more about the 'Scientific American' controversy. It seems
that the authors' technical papers were very good, but the contract was for
a general column. Scientific American asked him to write an article on
Darwin as a test to see if his religious views dominated his views on
science related to biology and evolution. He wrote his article and SA found
that his beliefs totally distorted his views on the subject and they felt
that he was discarding science. It was only then they dropped him as a
regular columnist. Hopefully someone has more detailed information than I.
Paul
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 5 Sat Nov 17, 1990
P.LANDT [Peggy] at 13:10 EST
The author in question is a believer in Scientific Creationism(God's hand
guiding all-not a blind clockmaker). From Darwin's own works there is an
quote which shows Darwin felt the furtherance of knowledge of creation and
evolution was in God's hands. I'll dig through my papers(if they haven't
already been sent to the re-cycler) and try to find it.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 6 Sat Nov 17, 1990
D.COATS [Debbie] at 22:28 EST
Is this the same one that was on "Crossfire" not to long ago? If so, I do
believe he is being persecuted for his belief in God.
I'm waiting to see if the ACLU jumps on this or if indeed they ignore this
flagrant abuse of that man's civil liberty to be employed there regardless
of his religious beliefs.
Debbie
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 7 Sun Nov 18, 1990
D.EDELSTEIN2 [David] at 03:22 EST
I doubt he is being persecuted for his belief in God, since I find it hard
to believe that "Scientific American" would hire ONLY atheists. His belief
in a discredited non-scientific theory is the reason he was fired.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 8 Sun Nov 18, 1990
A.CONNOR [Crazy Horse] at 05:12 EST
Speaking from the biological/anthropological point-of-view (my field), there
is no such thing as "scientific" creationism. If SA had let him publish
articles from that point-of-view, they would have become the laughingstock
of the scientific community. I doubt that is one of their goals.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 9 Sun Nov 18, 1990
D.LAME [Dave] at 11:53 EST
If SA gave him an assignment about Darwin and it came back tainted by
his religious beliefs, then he is not being persecuted by being let go. If
he cannot write about science without being affected by a belief in a
nonscientific theory, then he has no place in a science magazine.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 10 Wed Nov 21, 1990
G.ERICHSEN at 02:35 EST
While browsing through the library today, I came across an article in
the Nov. 19 issue of Christianity Today magazine which tells about the
incident of this topic.
e, Scientific American asked him if he believed in Darwinian evolution, and
he said no. (The article doesn't clearly indicate what Mims' beliefs were,
although I assume it is some form of theological creationism.)
He apparently was told during that interview that if he wrote
anything on creationism his pay ($2,000 per column) would be cut, or he
could be dismissed.
g he was fired.
amaging its credibility. Apparently the fear was that vocal creationists
could use Mims and his position with the magazine to lend their position
some credibility with the public.
I say "apparently" a lot, since it was necessary to some reading
between the lines in the article.
According to the article, Mims has agreed not to pursue litigation
in connection with complaints of discrimination in 1988, although it is
asking for an investigation into allegedly discriminatory practices by the
magazine.
I suggest anybody interested in this topic check out the article; it
appears to be reasonably objective, although in some ways it raises more
questions than it answers.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
uess is that the magazine would have had similar qualms about anybody who
advocated a position that went contrary to the accepted tenets of science,
whether that means an anti-evolution position or a belief in a flat earth.
It will be interesting to see if Mims becomes a cause celebre in
fundamentalist/evangelical circles.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 11 Wed Nov 21, 1990
G.ERICHSEN at 02:51 EST
Oops, that didn't send right. I'll try again.
While browsing through the library today, I came across an article in
the Nov. 19 issue of Christianity Today magazine which tells about the
incident of this topic.
The freelance writer in question is Forrest Mims III, who has written
for numerous scientific, popular and religious publications. He apparently
interviewed with Scientific American in 1988 about writing its Amateur
Scientist column. At that time, Scientific American asked him if he
believed in Darwinian evolution, and he said no. (The article doesn't
clearly indicate what Mims' beliefs were, although I assume it is some form
of theological creationism.)
He apparently was told during that interview that if he wrote
anything on creationism his pay ($2,000 per column) would be cut, or he
could be dismissed.
Since then he has written three columns, the last one apparently
being fairly recent (the article doesn't say). That column apparently will
be his last. Apparently has not been offered a continuing assignment,
although Mims apparently is saying he was fired.
According to the article, Scientific American isn't commenting. But
two former editors of the journal are quoted in the story. According to
them, the magazine didn't have a problem with Mims being a Christian.
[There are plenty of Christians who don't believe in creationism, I among
them, but that's a subject I'll leave for the religion BB.] But apparently
there was some concern with a creationist being affiliated with the magazine
-- it could end up proving embarrassing to the magazine, damaging its
credibility. Apparently the fear was that vocal creationists could use Mims
and his position with the magazine to lend their position some credibility
with the public.
I say "apparently" a lot, since it was necessary to some reading
between the lines in the article.
According to the article, Mims has agreed not to pursue litigation
in connection with complaints of discrimination in 1988, although it is
asking for an investigation into allegedly discriminatory practices by the
magazine.
I suggest anybody interested in this topic check out the article; it
appears to be reasonably objective, although in some ways it raises more
questions than it answers.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
As to my views: My impression after reading the article wasn't that
Mims was a victim of religious discrimination. There is no evidence given
that Scientific American attempts to keep Christians, fundamentalist or
otherwise, off its staff. My guess is that the magazine would have had
similar qualms about anybody who advocated a position that went contrary to
the accepted tenets of science, whether that means an anti-evolution
position or a belief in a flat earth.
It will be interesting to see if Mims becomes a cause celebre in
fundamentalist/evangelical circles.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 12 Thu Dec 27, 1990
R.LIBBY3 [Ralph] at 22:32 EST
I have read many an article by the author in question, but they were all
about things electronic or mechanical. I was quite suprised to find out he
was to do articles on Biological sciences, since I didnt know he had as much
knowledge in that field as in electronics. When he was producing "Notebook"
for Radio Shack, he carefully omitted circuits that used parts that Radio
Shack didnt have, but the rest was most enlightening. Normally, if you dont
measure up to the editors expectations, your stuff doesnt get published.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 13 Thu Dec 27, 1990
M.DOTSON2 [Mark] at 22:37 EST
Peggy,
I would call it censorship.
Yeshua haMelekh!
Mark
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 14 Sat Dec 29, 1990
G.SWANSON1 at 20:56 EST
I would not call this censorship in any way or form. If you are writing for
a particular type of magazine or organization, you are expected to follow
their guidelines. If you cannot or will not do so, obviously you should not
be writing for them. This is the reasoning that I see behind SA's dismissal
of Mims. He HAS no cause.
My father has a Ph.D. degree in cyto-taxonomy and cyto-genetics. Both
fields show the development of living organisms. However, he believes there
HAS to be a God. All this cannot possibly have created itself. I tend to
agree with him. I believe both my parents have written for SA at some time
or another, though not for quite a few years. Names? Askell Love, Ph.D. and
Doris Love, Ph.D. My mother was, and still is, a specialist in Plant
Geography - how plants came to be where they are now, put very simply. She
too is retired, but now does translations from several languages to English.
Interesting person. My father is no longer able to pursue his profession,
sad to say.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 15 Sat Dec 29, 1990
M.DOTSON2 [Mark] at 21:04 EST
Was SA's position different then than it is now concerning theories of
creation?
Eirene!
Mark
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 16 Sat Dec 29, 1990
J.JIMENEZ [Juan] at 23:18 EST
I dunno about this "all this cannot possibly have created itself". This
planet is estimated to have an age of 4.7 BILLION years. A lot of things can
happen in that time, including very many things that would be considered
amazing coincidences with very large odds against their happening. I don't
agree with the idea that if someone cannot picture or imagine that kind of
time and what could happen in it they should immediately ascribe what
happened to religious explanations and "God did it." That's a surefire road
to mediocrity. It's fine to have religious beliefs, I have nothing against
that, but there's a limit.
Juan
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 17 Sun Dec 30, 1990
M.DOTSON2 [Mark] at 00:22 EST
Juan,
They are discussing this in the Religious BB (Cat 12-Topic 32) if you
would like to peruse the messages.
Eirene!
Mark
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 18 Sun Dec 30, 1990
D.EDELSTEIN2 [Inverarity] at 01:23 EST
Thank you, Mark. I don't think we want to get into "Is there a God?"
arguments here.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 19 Mon Dec 31, 1990
M.DOTSON2 [Mark] at 03:27 EST
No problem friend David.
Eirene!
Mark
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 20 Tue Jan 01, 1991
T.HALLIWELL [Terry] at 03:23 EST
If no "Is there a God" conversations allowed, then what does
"anti-faith" mean. After all that is part of the topic description.
Or is that relative to the Scientific American not giving out an editorship
to a Christian?
Perhaps this person who is the topic personality, has such strong
convictions about his Christianity, that he would not compromise his
principles, and neither would SA. Terry.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 21 Tue Jan 01, 1991
CHERNOFF [Paul] at 16:03 EST
Terry,
By there being no "Is there a God" conversations we mean that we do not want
to start talking about the existance of God in the RT (Religion & Ethics
would be more appropriate). It is appropriate to discuss belief in God of
the parties involved as to how it pertain's this discussion.
Paul
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 22 Sun Jan 20, 1991
J.BYERS4 at 02:42 EST
I am a graduate student in Cell Biology. This whole controversy has gotten
way out of hand. The author in question held beliefs and opinions which
disagreed with the SA editorial board. If Time or Newsweek fired a reporter
for writing a pro-Iraq article, nobody would be screaming about
censorship.(Well maybe some would, like me) The point is that the editorial
board has to control its magazine's reputation. A professor of mine when
asked what determines truth in science said "What journal it is published
in." To protect SA's reputation the editors had to do what they did. I
must add quickly that I am a very strong christian, in fact I moonlight as a
youth minister. I am able to keep the two quite separate. Whether creation
did or did not happen is not in the realm of science. I have absolutely no
problem being a "creationist" who is a scientist. I could not be a
"creation scientist" since that is not possible. I know this sounds like a
difference in semantics, it is, but it is a very important difference. I
hope that the columnist can find some other outlet for his work.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 23 Sat Feb 09, 1991
S.LAJOIE1 at 02:45 EST
They were right to fire him. He can write for a religious journal if he
wants.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 24 Sat Feb 09, 1991
M.DOTSON2 [Mark] at 03:37 EST
It was censorship. Sci-American is intolerant to any other view but their
own.
Mark
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 25 Sat Feb 09, 1991
SHERMAN [Tom] at 07:32 EST
We had an interesting realtime conference a few weeks ago about fairness in
media. One person who works for a newspaper pointed out that newspapers
have discretion over what they publish. I suspect that the same is legally
true for magazines.
Would it be censorship for any publication to fire an employee who didn't
share editorial policy? Would it be censorship if a creationist publication
fired an evolutionist employee or refused to publish an evolutionist
article?
Tom
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 26 Sat Feb 09, 1991
M.DOTSON2 [Mark] at 12:37 EST
Tom,
Yes, I would think so. Censorship is BAD any way you look at it.
Doulos
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 27 Sat Feb 09, 1991
S.LAJOIE1 at 13:27 EST
You're assuming, Mark Dotson2, that if you own a newspaper, then anyone has
a right to express themselves in your paper. This isn't so. ITS YOUR PAPER,
you can print what you want. If someone who works for you writes something
you don't like, you don't have to print it. If you feel that it is totally
out of place in your paper, then you'd be silly to print it.
How would you feel if, after a sermon in your church, someone from
another faith had a right to get up and express a rebuttle, and after
him/her, another person got up and said that religion was just a bunch of
hooey anyway, and started to give a scientific rebuttle.
The fact is, there is a time and place for everything. This is not
Censorship. Censorship is when you own the paper, and I keep you from
publishing. If SA banned the sale of the Bible, that would be Censorship.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 28 Sat Feb 09, 1991
E.MERRILL [][] Eric [][] at 15:51 EST
Scientific American intolerant?
Maybe...but no less so than the Bible. Talk 'bout yer massive
censorship... It doesn't give any space to "opposing" views...doesn't even
mention evolution, nor any other opposing viewpoint. Those topics which it
mentions that it disagrees with, it slams violently.
___
| \
|-- ric
|______\
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 29 Sun Feb 10, 1991
M.DOTSON2 [Mark] at 17:00 EST
Eric,
You don't have to read it, or obey it if you choose not to. You DO have a
freewill y'know.
Mark
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 30 Tue Feb 12, 1991
G.ERICHSEN [Eric] at 10:45 EST
S.Lajoie1>If someone who works for you writes something
>you don't like, you don't have to print it.
I write for a newspaper, and one of my duties is to select which letters to
the editor we will run. Newspapers are something like sports teams --
people in the community seem to think they own them. There are some
positive aspects to that, but one of the negatives is the misconception that
they have the _right_ to have something printed in the newspaper. That
isn't so. But they do have the right to start their own newspaper if they
wish, or to propagate their views in some other way.
BTW, the policy here is to print as many letters as we can and ones
representing a range of viewpoints. We commonly run letters disagreeing
with our viewpoint and even ones which take us to task for how we cover the
news. Our printing of such letters is a matter of courtesy and indicative
of our sense of fair play, not a matter of the letter-writer's right to have
us publish his/her material.
Whether we're talking about censorship or editorial discretion is a matter
of semantics. What are _aren't_ talking about, however, is an abridgement
of First Amendment rights.
E.Merrill>[The Bible] doesn't give any space to "opposing"
>views.
I don't want to get too far off-topic, but I couldn't resist a comment. As
I understand it, the Bible does in fact contain a variety of viewpoints --
the militaristic God seen in parts of the Old Testament, the socially
conscious God of the minor prophets, the forgiving God of the gospels, the
devotion of the Psalms, the skepticism of the Psalms and Ecclesiastes, and
on and on. The Bible was written by some three dozen writers, and they do
not write from a consistent viewpoint; some of their views, in fact, are
contradictory.
Also, the Bible doesn't say anything against the evolutionary viewpoint.
The Bible isn't intended to offer a scientific account.
Okay, okay, I've drifted off topic, and even into a topic that belongs on
another bulletin board.
I just had to respond to your statement claiming that the Bible "slams
violently" opposing viewpoints. I believe you're falsely characterizing the
collection of books by the behavior of some of those who claim to believe in
it.
++++++++++++++
And now, back to the topic ....
I've stated my views on the particular incident earlier, so I won't repeat
them. But I still would like to know why a scientific magazine should retain
as a columnist somebody who publicly promotes a non-scientific view. I'm
sure the same thing would happen if a columnist became publicly identified
as an astrologer or as someone who believed in a flat Earth.
This isn't the appropriate place to get into a discussion of whether or not
creationism is oxymoronic. But I think we all could agree that creationism
falls well outside what most biologists and archaeologists would accept as
scientific.
To follow up on what Sherman suggested earlier, we wouldn't expect an
evangelical Christian publication (for example) to carry a column written by
an atheist, even if the columnist didn't talk about his/her faith. It's a
matter of editorial integrity rather than censorship (although we're talking
semantics again).
Is Scientific American anti-faith? No. But it is anti-pseudo-science.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 31 Tue Feb 12, 1991
E.MERRILL [][] Eric [][] at 19:21 EST
Eric...
> Is Scientific American anti-faith? No. But it is anti-pseudo-science.
Well said! :-)
___
| \
|-- ric
|______\
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 32 Tue Feb 12, 1991
S.LAJOIE1 [Fresno] at 22:46 EST
What did I do? Why did you quote me? I thought that the Publisher of the
newspaper was the one with the free speech, and all you other guys worked
for him and you printed what the publisher wanted you to print.... Not that
I'm saying that the publisher directs his employees to print certain
things, but that the freedom of speech (the paper) belongs to him. I think
we're in agreement on this.
What did I do?
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 33 Wed Feb 13, 1991
JIMENEZ at 00:38 EST
Mark, you are confusing censorship with editorial control of a publication.
A publication like Scientific American is well within it's rights to fire
someone who refuses to follow the publication's editorial policy.
Juan
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 34 Wed Feb 13, 1991
DAEDWARDS [Don] at 00:53 EST
Eric:
> ... of whether or not creationism is oxymoronic
I don't recall anyone saying that creationism, in and of itself, is
oxymoronic.
Creation science, a tiny subset of creationism, is a different matter...
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 35 Sun Feb 17, 1991
J.TRACHMAN at 18:35 EST
==>The Publisher...the one with the free speech
Yes, S.Lajoie1, I agree with you utterly. The operant rules: 1) Freedom of
the press belongs to those who operate the presses. And 2) The Golden Rule --
those who've got the gold, get to make the rules.
(I have no problem with either of those concepts, btw. And also btw, I'm in
the same town as you -- Fresno... Sometimes I think The Bee is the *s
10>*s
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 36 Sun Feb 17, 1991
DAEDWARDS [Don] at 23:46 EST
(J.Trachman: it has come out elsewhere that Fresno is in Seattle. :-)
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 37 Mon Feb 18, 1991
S.LAJOIE1 [Fresno] at 22:04 EST
J.Trachman: I agree with you about the Bee. Sorry about the Handle I'm
using, uphere it's unique, but on a national board it causes confusion.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 38 Sat Mar 09, 1991
J.TRACHMAN at 22:17 EST
Hi, People... Well, I'm more confused than ever -- but it seems like a
natural state for me. Right now, I'm trying to figure out how to get Aladdin
to make nice for me in here, like TAPcis does for me, uhhh, someplace else.
Oh -- I'd better get back to the topic. Scientific American -- anti-faith?
No more than religion is anti-science. On when one passes itself off as the
other, do we get problems. Like the classic (Reader's Digest?) story about
the scientist who claimed there was no scientific way to prove that G*d
exists, and his theologian friend who replied that there was no theological
way to prove that an atom exists. And on we go... ;-)
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 39 Sun Mar 10, 1991
CHERNOFF [Paul] at 20:04 EST
Just a quick note to visit the ALLADIN RT for any help you might need with
Alladin.
Paul
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 40 Mon Mar 18, 1991
T.SIMPSON3 at 08:55 EST
While S.A. was in it's rights to control the viewpoints expressed in it's
publication it stops being objective pure science reporting when it calls
one hypotheses model fact (change of one species to another over time) and
refueses to give alternative views. Neither evolution or creation can be
proven in the sense that other scientific facts are established. Neither can
be observed, duplicated, or tested. Both rely on evidence which is open to
interpretation Even with hard facts behind them, scientist were suprised to
find the moon did not have as much of a dust layer as they expected. Human
judgement is not perfect yet S.A. would indicate the speculations of the
evolutionist are by their policy.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 41 Mon Mar 18, 1991
J.JIMENEZ [Juan] at 13:12 EST
Is Creatonism the so-called theory that states that the world was created
6,000 years ago and that fossils found to be millions of years old were
actually planted here when the planet was created? If that's the case, boy,
am I glad S.A. is taking a stand against this kind of... mm... ack, I can't
even come up with a word for it that won't make the SysOps want to phaser me
into dust. You know what I mean, though. :)
Juan
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 42 Mon Mar 18, 1991
S.LAJOIE1 [Fresno] at 21:49 EST
Evolution was discovered at a time when it was dangerous to propose such
ideas. It was put forth after an examination of the data, and was refined by
additional data gathering and open discussion. It is true, that it would
take quite a while to observe an new species develop to prove the theory.
Creationism stated with a conclusion and worked towards an expliantion. It's
basis is in things that cannot be proven. The conclusion, infact, was made
in the complete absence of data. It is not "science". Science requires
objective and unbias thought. There is not one bit of evidence to support
it.
Sorry, it would be a farce to publish creationism as science.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 43 Mon Mar 18, 1991
M.DIANA2 [Mark] at 23:26 EST
I agree, Fresno. Decisons reached on non-empirical grounds are not
scientific, therefore they don't belong in SA. If the author wanted to
report the findings of research supporting his position, that would be
different matter, but as you've pointed out, creationism isn't based on
data.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 44 Tue Mar 19, 1991
D.HERMES1 [DantheMan] at 00:49 EST
+ OPIt should be noted though that somehow the pressure of fame has caused
some scandals and outright lies to be performed in name of furthering the
theory of evolution.A scientific journal is the place for reporting these
errors and even pointing out the holes in the theory(and there are many
places where observed fossil records do not support the current hot
theories). While creationism has no facts to support itself(besides the
word of God), it is not true that the evolution of man is followable(new
word) through the fossil record. Supporters of evolution are as guilty of
having a conclusion and trying to fit the data into it as creationist.
To me, that is one role of Scientific American, reporting fraud in
accepted research.
Dan from Houston
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 45 Tue Mar 19, 1991
S.LAJOIE1 [Fresno] at 00:58 EST
True, there aren't enough fossils to complete the record. It is unfortunate
that the pre-human populations were so small and tended to live in areas
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 46 Tue Mar 19, 1991
S.LAJOIE1 [Fresno] at 01:12 EST
...Opps!... and tended to live in areas that didn't fossilize very well.
However, the evidence does show a clear progression towards man, and the
evidence is fairly strong. The evidence that the devil put the fossils there
to throw us off track is pretty lame. It's important that one be able to
make a rational, unbias decision.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 47 Tue Mar 19, 1991
D.HERMES1 [DantheMan] at 03:53 EST
Exactly. Creationism hasn't a chance in the scientific community(tho' some
have found a way to reconcile the two), but why cover up fraud? Isn't the
number of different breeds of dogs(man-made selection) evidence enough that
long term natural selection is powerful enough to account for evolution?
Seriously, SA has not to my knowledge ever admitted to the fraud for fame
acts.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 48 Tue Mar 19, 1991
R.CHEVRIER [Ditto Head] at 21:11 EST
Hello all,
I just started this topic recently and had some comments I had to share.
Please
excuse the Long post. Won't happen often. Just catching up.
>>>J.JIMENEZ [Juan]
> Is Creationism the so-called theory that states that the world was
> created 6,000 years ago and that fossils found to be millions of years
> old were actually planted here when the planet was created?
How do we know those fossils are millions of years old? The dating of
fossils relies heavily on the sedimentary rock layers in which they are
found. Evolutionist tell us that these layers can be explained by millions
of years of geological processes. However, a theory that has just as much
scientific justification is the enormous catastrophic processes produced by
a global flood. Both theories have evidence. Which one you believe is
determined by your own bias.
>>> S.LAJOIE1 [Fresno]
> Creationism sta[r]ted with a conclusion and worked towards an
> explanation. It's basis is in things that cannot be proven. The
> conclusion, in fact, was made in the complete absence of data. It is not
> "science". Science requires objective and unbias thought. There is not
> one bit of evidence to support it.
All scientific theories are based on a hypothesis which the scientist
then tried to support with scientific evidence. To ignore the evidence for
creation because it originated in a hypothesis seems to me to be
unscientific. I thought scientists want to "prove" or "disprove"
conflicting hypotheses. Instead, with creation, they just want to ignore
it rather than deal with it scientifically.
> The evidence that the devil put the fossils there to throw us off track
> is pretty lame. It's important that one be able to make a rational,
> unbias decision.
None of the creationists I have studied claim that fossils are a trick of
the devil. I believe that statement is the result of an irrational, biased
opinion of creationists.
>>>D.HERMES1 [DantheMan]
> Isn't the number of different breeds of dogs(man-made selection)
> evidence enough that long term natural selection is powerful enough to
> account for evolution?
Man in his infinite scientific wisdom has yet to breed a "DAT" or a "COG"
(cross between cat and dog). If different breeds leeds to the theory of
natural selection then this thinking opens to door to Blacks and Orientals,
etc. could be another species without the rights deserved by humans
(whites). I KNOW!! This sounds far fetched but gradualism can result in
such thought over time. Hitler accomplished it so it could be done again.
>=>=>=> Randy Chevrier <=<=<=< Thanks, Co-Pilot!
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 49 Tue Mar 19, 1991
HITT.MAN at 21:16 EST
If you want to discuss evloution vs. creationsism the best place is the
Releigon and Ethics RT, where there are several discussions going on on the
subject. The "Moon Dust" arguemnt is another creationist smoke screen, and
it, along with dozens of others, are joyusly debunked over there. (Not that
it changes any of their minds.)
My favorite Creationsist scam so far is Setterfields Light Decay Theory. It
explains how a 6,000 year old planet can see light from stars that are
billions of light years away. According to him as time goes on light SLOWS
DOWN! (To be fair, this guy is SO goofy that even some creationists reject
him.)
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 50 Tue Mar 19, 1991
M.DIANA2 [Mark] at 23:51 EST
Ditto Head,
Dating rocks and fossils is done by a method called carbon dating, based on
the rate of decay of the carbon atom, and is considered very accurate.
You make some good points, particularly about the dog thing, there are not
new species of dogs which we created. But the evidence we do have supports
evolution more so than creationism. The evidence is not complete, nor is it
without conflict, but it suppone view over another. The fact that nobody has
taken the time to gather objective evidence in support of creationism
doesn't mean it's not possible. But the mere act of pointing out
contradictions in the theory of evolution does not support creationism. It
seems to me that's the approach most people who support creationism take.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 51 Wed Mar 20, 1991
D.HERMES1 [DantheMan] at 00:36 EST
Creationist are welcome to keep their blinders on, what's it matter to me?
As to believing in evolution creating an environment for Hitler. Hitler was
a demented man and should only be considered as such(and btw my guess would
be that he was a creationist). Hogwash. Maybe that's why SA won't give any
credence to creationism--they can't make it scientific and use observed
facts--but that's still no justification for not showing the history of
errors in evolution. Anti-faith? Sure, I'll go with the observed phenomana
any day.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 52 Wed Mar 20, 1991
S.LAJOIE1 [Fresno] at 00:47 EST
Ditto Head:
You must form your first hypothysis in an unbias mannor, and be willing to
abandon it when a better one comes along. Creationist started with the Bible
and proudly cling to it as a matter of faith. Creationism is a spoof of
science created only for the courtroom. It's purpose is to push a particular
belief. It is not good science.
Carbon-14 dating can be validated by checking tree rings and comparing
periods of fast growth with slow growth. Using this, we find it easy to
date layers of rock by the fossils that are in them. Doing this, one
quickly comes to the conclusion that the Earth is alot older than a few
thousand years old; at this point, any serious scientist would toss out the
Biblical creation "theory".
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 53 Wed Mar 20, 1991
CHERNOFF [Paul] at 20:43 EST
Since the evolution/creation debate often hinges on arguments on what is and
is not science perhaps some people would like to give their view of the
scientific method. Also, people might like to suggest recommend readings
since some of the discussions can get complex and long-winded.
Paul
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 54 Wed Mar 20, 1991
J.JIMENEZ [Juan] at 23:44 EST
Ditto Head, look up "carbon dating". Also, under geology, look up the
subject of determining, by soil sample analisys, when an area has been hit
by a massive flood.
Scientific justification of creationism? Where? Who? :)
Juan
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 55 Thu Mar 21, 1991
C.HAMPTON3 [Ariel] at 22:01 EST
Good point, Paul. As a former (raised that way) athiest turned Christian,
this is a subject I've thought about a lot, but I avoid most discussions
about it because they tend to just repeat tautologies instead of looking for
the real grounds for disagreement.
I might add, I don't believe that the theory of "Creationism" as currently
defined by fundamentalist Christians in this country is equivalent to belief
in a God who created the heavens and the earth. The first is an attempt to
assert a literal rendering of Genesis 1 and 2 in a scientific (and,
therefore, foreign) form. The second is, by its nature, an axiomatic
statement, or, in Christian terms, a statement of faith.
Of course, the scientific method has its own statements of faith, however
rarely they are actually stated. Behind every deduction ever made through
that method are the beliefs that the individual exists, that a universe
separate from the individual exists, that that universe is ordered, and that
human minds are capable of perceiving and understanding that order in a
real, if limited, way, and that these human beings are capable of
communicating their understanding about the universe to one another in a
real, if limited, way. I'm sure I could think of others, but this will do
for a start.
Given these axioms, a scientist then proceeds, through observation and
experimentation, to learn what he can and, usually, communicate it to
others. In doing this, a scientist is on the outside looking in at what
he's studying or experimenting on.
As far as I've been able to tell, the scientific method is applicable only
on subjects amenable to observation and experimentation.
I don't think anyone here would claim that, if God exists, we as human
beings can get on the outside, so to speak, look in, and study him or
experiment on him! ;> Thus, if the scientific method is the only way of
discerning truth, we're stuck forever not knowing whether God exists one way
or the other.
Comments?
Ariel
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 56 Thu Mar 21, 1991
M.DIANA2 [Mark] at 23:17 EST
Ariel,
Well stated. There are some things we can never know or prove via science or
any thing else. The existence of God is one of those things, as is the
origin of the Universe and by extension, the Earth and life upon it. There
will always be the question of what came before.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 57 Fri Mar 22, 1991
ECHO at 18:11 EST
Great post, Ariel.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 58 Fri Mar 22, 1991
S.LAJOIE1 [Fresno] at 21:48 EST
It is, of course, very difficult to disprove the existance of something that
does not exist, and the task become impossible when the people who say that
this non-existant thing cannot be seen, touched, or senced in any way. When
God is raised above being subject to experimentation, the subject of the
existance of God becomes a matter of opinion, not science. The "statement
of faith" that science makes, (or fundamental postulates) are given without
proof as obvious to the observer. To make the leap that God exist by a
similar "statement of faith" is to go beyond the obvious and into the
absurd. It is not obvious. Look at how many hundreds of different versions
of God that there are.
This is why Creationist writings have no place in Scientific American.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 59 Sat Mar 23, 1991
DAEDWARDS [Don] at 02:10 EST
Ariel:
I'll echo Echo, and say "great post". :-)
However, I had an odd thought.
Those "articles of faith" you found in science. Please assume that any one
OR MORE of them are false, your choice. (Identify which one(s) you are
assuming is/are false.) And, under that assumption, tell me what you had
for lunch.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 60 Sat Mar 23, 1991
C.HAMPTON3 [Ariel] at 03:48 EST
Fresno, you assume in your statement that God's existence isn't similarly
obvious to at least some people, and that what is obvious to you is to all
men equally and similarly.
Amazing how those statements of faith keep popping up . . . . ;>
Your complaint that we believers somehow took God's existence out of the
realm of proof is common, and also meaningless as far as I can tell. If
God, the transcendent creator of the universe, exists, then it is by
definition impossible to step outside of the universe and of him, and
determine through observation and experimentation whether he exists or not.
The scientific method simply doesn't stretch that far. So, if scientific
method is your only means of knowing about the universe, you've got a
problem.
I agree that the subject of creation, as a metaphysical debate, doesn't
belong in the pages of Scientific American. Of course, that applies equally
to those misapplications of evolution that presume to state a theory of
origins outside of their purview.
Ariel
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 61 Sat Mar 23, 1991
D.HERMES1 [DantheMan] at 04:20 EST
Ariel---So what if God is outside the sytem? or even if God Is the system.
Say I create a program onmy computer or better yet, an intelligent computer.
Then leave(was Neizche right?)...I believe thae program will question its
existence and purpose and might develop a scientific method by which it
could eliminate some options and maybe prove one.
Science is simple, but somehow distrusted. As example the existence of this
topic. Why do people distrust careful thinking?
Dan from Houston
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 62 Sat Mar 23, 1991
R.CHEVRIER [Ditto Head] at 05:38 EST
Mark, Thanks for your response.
True, we have have a problem of trying to support creation science by
attacking evolution. This is a poor method of discussing the topic. In my
case it is that those facts seem to be the ones that struck me as most
notable since I was taught evolution in school and now see the flaws in the
theory. Creation science is not without facts, however, but the original
subject of this topic explains in part why we don't hear about many of
them. I have some opinions about why this is but we are looking for facts.
As layman, I have limited understand of physics; very limited! (I'm an
accountant; I know sufficient strength will break a pencil lead ;-) ) But
my understanding of the second law of thermodynamics "the amount of usable
energy in the universe is decreasing" would support the theory of a
universe created in order that is moving to disorder rather than disorder,
(misc. cells) moving toward order (man, life & the ordered universe).
This law also shows that because the universe is "running out of energy" it
is not eternal. An eternal universe is not required for the creation
theory, in fact it is what would be expected. (I would have said the
eternal universe IS required for evolution, but I am trying to limit my
facts to PRO creation.)
One of the best descriptions of why the universe has the "signature" of
intelligent creation is shown in this table showing the results of natural
cause versus intelligent cause:(hope the formating works)
NATURAL CAUSE PRODUCES INTELLIGENT CAUSE PRODUCES
sand dunes sand castles
crystals chandeliers
waterfalls hydro-electric plants
round stones arrow heads
Mt. McKinley Mt. Rushmore
clouds sky writing
arrangements of letters arangement of letters
in alphabet soup in an encyclopedia
from: Knowing the Truth about Creation by Norman L. Geisler
One other note and I'll shut up. Someone made the comment to move this
topic to the religion/ethics board. If it should go anywhere it would be
to the science board(is there one?). I would be out of my league there.
But the point is that those who defend creation science are always looked
on as "religious people" first as if this negates their scientific data and
theories. It is true that most of us have a bias in believing in God. I
was a Christian before I was motivated to seek out the facts for creation.
It is unfortunate, however, that scientists today who are creationists
can't gain respect as did Francis Bacon, Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler,
Kelvin, Newton and others who saw evidence for creation in their time.
Maybe what we're dealing with here is "Politicaly Correct Science".
Thanks for your time.
>=>=>=> Randy Chevrier <=<=<=< --==<< Thanks, Co-Pilot! >>==--
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 63 Sat Mar 23, 1991
R.CHEVRIER [Ditto Head] at 05:38 EST
>>> DantheMan,
>>> observed facts--<<< ??? observed facts?????
Excuse me, but please show me the evolutionist (or creationist for that
matter) that can produce observed facts for the origions of life. We are
dealing with Origin science. Observed facts can only be gained from
Operation science which requires recurring patterns of events against which
to measure theories. It's too late for that. We can't go back in time and
see it all start over again. If this seems like a small point then I would
suggest you study the principles of origin science and operation science.
I've just spent a couple of hours reading about it as I read these messages
and it is very interesting (and very important to the topic).
Thanks to you too for your time.
>=>=>=> Randy Chevrier <=<=<=< --==<< Thanks, Co-Pilot! >>==--
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 64 Sat Mar 23, 1991
R.CHEVRIER [Ditto Head] at 05:39 EST
Juan,
I have no problem believing in a massive flood and the cause of it being a
direct result of a "young earth" theory.
Where is justification? (info)
Institute for Creation Research
P.O. Box 2667
El Cajon, CA 92021-0667
Ask for a catalog of materials.
Some materials assume a Christian belief but some are strictly scientific.
>=>=>=> Randy Chevrier <=<=<=< --==<< Thanks, Co-Pilot! >>==--
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 65 Sat Mar 23, 1991
R.CHEVRIER [Ditto Head] at 05:39 EST
Ariel,
It is true that we can't set up an experiment to show what happened in the
begining of time but we can look at the laws of physics and apply them to
the past to give an indication of possible actions that took place. This
is called The Principle of Uniformity which is one of the crucial
principles of Origin science. As we observe the universe today we see
nowhere an example of order resulting from disorder by chance. No one can
site such an example. The computer I am using was not formed by an
explosion in a plastic/silicon plant. It is the result of intelligent
purpose. Mt Rushmore is not a result of years of erosion, but a result of
intelligent cause. Science knows that the laws of physics are static so
applying this observation to the past we must conclude that our orderly
universe is the result of an intelligent creator. Hope this gives some
better insight to the applicability and limitations of science in this
area.
>=>=>=> Randy Chevrier <=<=<=< --==<< Thanks, Co-Pilot! >>==--
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 66 Sat Mar 23, 1991
R.CHEVRIER [Ditto Head] at 05:40 EST
>>> Fresno
The first hypothysis will be influenced by a bias somehow!! Scientists
aren't running experiments to see if water will float in thin air. Why?
They are biased in there thinking by their belief that water is governed by
the law of gravity. They happen to be correct but they are still bias when
it comes to studying gravity. Even if one were to seek to "prove"
creation, though he believed in evolution, hoping he would fail, his biased
belief in evolution would affect the study.
I do agree that one should abandon a theory when a better one comes along
and that is why I am a creationist. Fewer flaws I feel.
I must admit that Carbon dating is something I don't know much about but am
eager to do some reading on it.(sorry, that's not very closed minded of me,
is it?) However, even if we say those fossils are millions of years old,
they show no evidence for evolution either. With all the millions of
fossils found to date none show clear evidence of any transitional species,
though Darwin said that these species would be found in time. How much
time does he need? Over 99% of the fossils found have been found after
Darwin's statement. With this argument, you may win the battle but still
loose the war.
>=>=>=> Randy Chevrier <=<=<=< --==<< Thanks, Co-Pilot! >>==--
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 67 Sat Mar 23, 1991
ECHO at 09:10 EST
Randy,
You really should go read the Evolution/Creation topics on the
Religion/Ethics RT. The issues you bring up (especially the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics) have been exhaustively discussed. You might get all the
"reading" you need from there! All points of view are represented.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 68 Sat Mar 23, 1991
C.HAMPTON3 [Ariel] at 13:19 EST
Well, nothing, so far, Don. It's before 10:00 AM. ;>
And denying any or all of them hasn't stopped many existentialists (who do
deny all but the first) from eating lunch. Which brings up another subject -
- the indubitable human propensity to "believe" one way and act another.
(rueful grin)
You have a point, though, and a good one. And, in fact, I don't deny the
axioms of the scientific method, or the validity of the method itself. I
just recognize its limitations.
I'll ask a similar question. Believing every one of those axioms, and
nothing else, why would you get up in the morning?
This isn't just for Don. Anyone who wants to answer that question, go
ahead.
Ariel
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 69 Sat Mar 23, 1991
J.JIMENEZ [Juan] at 14:22 EST
Huh? "Institute for Creation Research"?
Yeah, ok, I'll send out for the materials. :)
Juan
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 70 Sat Mar 23, 1991
D.HERMES1 [DantheMan] at 14:49 EST
Sorry, the earth is not a closed system. It constantly recieves energy to
stir things up and isn't constantly losing energy. Sure, I'd love to read
more from the creatinist viewpoint. Certainly haven't seen much so far in
my studies, so that may imply my studies are biased.
Observed facts--Those physical evidences which exists no matter your
viewpoint. In this case the fossil record's progression from simple plant
to simple animal, to complex animal. This is not absolute evidence for
evolution. Perhaps the alternate method of showing relation of species
(other than physical resemblance) of comparing genetic similarities. This
isn't the place for it(wrong forum). Ariel--sorry I missed the point. I get
up in the morning pleased that the world will operate in a way similar to
yesterday and that knowledge learned yesterday can be built upon today for
tomorrow.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 71 Sat Mar 23, 1991
S.LAJOIE1 [Fresno] at 15:11 EST
Ariel: Yes, I DO assume that God's existance isn't obvious to some people.
It isn't obvious to me! There are many cultures through out the world who
do not find a belief in the God you believe in to be obvious. Yet, the
basics assumtions of Mathmatics are things like 1+1=2. You woun't find many
people on this planet that would argue that! Mathmatics is essential to
Physics, the mother of all Sciences. Other assumtions about the existance of
rulers, the existance of Force (or mass, if you go that way) and the
existance of time are universals. Everyone accepts them. You will not have
much room for discussion about length, time and mass. F=m*a - Basic. You say
that I have a problem because my way of "knowing" things is limited to
science. Not so. I actually "know" very little. I do have opinions about
things that I cannot justify scientificly. They are, however, my opinions,
and I would realize that they have no place in Scientific American. I have,
for example, opinions about my boss that I cannot prove in a scientific
sence, yet I'm pretty sure that they are true. I don't KNOW that they are
true, however. Science is about what you KNOW.
Ditto Head: It appears now that we have accounted for the interstellar dust
that there is enough mass in the Universe to cause it to collasp on itself.
Not that that has anything to do with evolution, but it seems to concern
you that the Universe not be eternal. Scientist were open-minded about the
subject, and the question hinged on if the gravitational pull was sufficent
to pull everything back together. It does appear that there will be a "big
crunch".
>"..we must conclude that our orderly universe is the result of an
intelligent creator.."
No, we must not conclude that. I suppose that it could have been argued
that quartz crystals were created by God. But, we now know that it has to do
with the structure of SiO2, and the way it cooled. Just because the Universe
cooled in a funny fashion does not imply the existance of God.
>"..Scientist aren't running to see if water will float in thin air.."
No, wrong again. NASA is very interested in how water floats in thin air. It
has been the subject of many Skylab and Shuttle experiments. And since the
time of Ben Franklin scientist have been tinkering with static electricity
and the deflection of flowing water. Again, what does this argument prove?
You wonder about why we have not verified Darwin's theory verbatum. Well,
Darwin wrote his theory before the existance of DNA was proved. He had no
knowledge of the mechanism for genic change. He speculated on how the change
could occure. We now know that, because of the way living things are put
together, a small change of the genetic structure can cause a jump in the
way the living thing appears. Darwin postulated continuous, gradual changes.
We now know that this is not always the case. However, if you want an
example of how changes to a new species can occure, consider California
salamanders. The salamanders north of San Francisco Bay are a different
species, for most purposes, from the salamanders south of the bay. Yet, we
don't consider them a seperate species. There are numorous sub-species that
ranges north up the mountains, back down the Sierra Nevada range, then back
up along the Coast Range, forming a continuous fow of genetic material from
one to the other. Any break in the chain, and a new species is "born".
Now, consider Earth quakes!
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 72 Sat Mar 23, 1991
C.HAMPTON3 [Ariel] at 16:44 EST
"Careful thinking" isn't equivalent to the "scientific method", DantheMan.
And, in all honesty, I don't distrust either.
I do distrust the conclusions some individuals come through misapplication
of the scientific method, though.
As to your comment about a computer being left to decide its own existence,
assuming you've developed what amounts to a conscious entity, I don't doubt
you're right it would start asking. My point is that a definitive answer,
or *proof*, of a transcendent God's existence is not possible within the
limitations of observation and experimentation. Observation and
experimentation both rely on the existence of a universe with consistent
laws, and a mind capable of understanding what is being observed.
A God who created the universe, exists somehow outside it, and created human
beings, human throught, and human intelligence, is too big to fit in a box
for observation and experimentation. You might as well try to create black
white or dry water.
This doesn't mean there aren't other ways of learning and thinking. But, to
learn about God, the scientific method is a washout.
Ariel
Ditto Head, you can look as far as physics will take you, and probably come
up with a lot of information about how the earth or the present physical
universe was formed. For that matter, we know quite a bit already.
You won't prove God's existence that way in any conclusive fashion, though.
He's bigger than all that, or isn't God.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 73 Sat Mar 23, 1991
M.DIANA2 [Mark] at 22:14 EST
Just a couple of observations:
A computer left to itself may begin to question its existence (althoug I
question the likelihood of that), but it would not be able to discover who
created it, without input from the creator (or a friend of his/hers )
The consistency of the laws of physics is not at all consistent. This is
particularly true when you start talking about extreme conditions, like
those postulated to have existed at and immediately after the Big Bang.
Under those conditions, virtually all of the laws as we know them cease to
exist
and we're nowhere near close to understanding what the laws were at that
time ( if it ever happened).
The controversy over the state of the universe (forever expanding vs
expansion- contraction) is nowhere near over. Some cosmologists believe
there is enough matter for an eventual contraction, others don't. Nothing is
proven yet.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 74 Sat Mar 23, 1991
DAEDWARDS [Don] at 23:03 EST
Ditto Head:
>As we observe the universe today we see nowhere an example of order
>resulting from disorder by chance.
That's right. Order results from disorder by application of natural law.
Find a large, clear, clean container that you can seal airtight. In the
bottom of it, set a dish of salt water (be careful not to spill any of the
water). Now set this container, sealed, in a place where it will be in the
sun, and undisturbed, for the remainder of the day.
Come by a few hours after sunset. Check the concentration of salt in
whatever water remains in the dish. It's higher. Check the concentration
of salt in the water which is NOT in the dish. There is no salt.
Order, resulting from disorder, with no intelligent intervention, and not by
chance.
= = = = = =
On the evolution/creation thing, I see precisely two possibilities:
(1) The scientists are, in general, right. There will be continued fudging
over details, and - considering the amount of evidence which is destroyed by
the ravages of time - we will NEVER get all details down precisely. But
they have the general idea, and those who deny it are fools.
(2) God created the world some way OTHER than the one scientists are
describing - and put a good deal of effort into making it look like what the
scientists are describing. Obviously, God wants us to believe that the
scientists have the general idea - so those who don't, are opposing the will
of God.
:-)
= = = = = =
Transitional species:
Homo Erectus. The lungfish. The frog. Archaeopteryx. Just four entries
in the list, off the top of the head of a person who doesn't make any effort
at all to keep track of these things.
It's amazing what you can prove if you make up your own data - and even more
so if you also feel free to ignore existing data.
= = = = = = = =
Ariel:
>Believing every one of those axioms, and nothing else, why would
>you get up in the morning.
Because I observe this obnoxious alarm clock, which I know (from previous
experimentation) will shut up if I apply a certain amount of force in a
certain manner.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 75 Sat Mar 23, 1991
S.LAJOIE1 [Fresno] at 23:22 EST
Mark:
>"The consistancy of the laws of physics is not at all consistant. This is
>particularly true when you start talking about extreme conditions..."
The physical laws of the universe, WE BELIEVE, do not change. But, our
formulation of those laws does change. Just as we go from classical
mechanics to relativity when we deal with high energy and high speeds, or
from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics when we go very small. Both
quantum mechanics and relativity reduce to classical mechanics when we go to
the large and slow, respectively. You could calculate the speed of a car
with either quantum or relativity. (But why would you want to?)
Now, when I say WE BELIEVE, I mean that we have not encountered a
different set of physical laws anywhere in the universe. I have little doubt
that when we know more about the big bang, we will be able to refine our
theories to extend into this region. It will, of course, be consistant with
the currently known physical laws.
A few years ago, it was shown that interstellar dust threw the total mass
of the universe over the limit at which it should collasp upon itself.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 76 Sun Mar 24, 1991
C.HAMPTON3 [Ariel] at 04:02 EST
Fresno, that wasn't the point. It seems to me that you assume that God's
existence is *NOT* obvious to anyone simply because it isn't obvious to you.
That sort of assumption is always dangerous, and in this case wrong.
Ariel
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 77 Sun Mar 24, 1991
S.LAJOIE1 [Fresno] at 10:02 EST
The point, Ariel, is that if we are to take God's existance as a "given", it
must be obvious to everyone. I don't think I said "anyone". It must be so
obvious that it cannot be subject to serious dispute. I have encountered
many that it is not obvious to, some would say that is why it is a matter of
faith. Just because it seems obvious to you does not make it a "given" for
the scientist.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 78 Sun Mar 24, 1991
C.HAMPTON3 [Ariel] at 14:46 EST
Don, there certainly is order out of disorder, but by what mechanism hasn't
been proved or even really theorized. "Chance" is just another term for,
"Something happened, and we don't know why."
As to there having been no intelligent intervention in the migration of the
salt, two things spring to mind. One, you can say that only assuming you
were capable of detecting all types of intelligent intervention, which I'd
dispute. Second, assuming God created the universe and set the laws in
motion, he intervened before and outside of a situation where you could even
hope to see it.
Amazing how these statements of faith just keep piling up . . . . ;>
As to that alarm clock, though, I can't argue. They *are* obnoxious! ;>
Ariel
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 79 Sun Mar 24, 1991
C.HAMPTON3 [Ariel] at 14:54 EST
Fresno, all the propositions of the "scientific method" are subject to
serious dispute. Just read the existentialists. For that matter, there are
those nihilists who dispute that anyone can ever know that they themselves
exist.
What you have, whether in science or in any religion, is a group of people
for whom the axioms/statements of faith/whatever are obvious and not
questioned. These people then proceed on that basis to form conclusions.
But to claim that a certain set of conclusions is obviously valid to all
people when you don't even get agreement on the premises makes no sense.
Ariel
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 80 Sun Mar 24, 1991
S.LAJOIE1 [Fresno] at 15:27 EST
Ariel: The mechanism that Don described in his experiment is well known.
Entropy in a system that is not closed can increase. I find that your
supposition that there was intelligent intervention is obviously false. The
opinon of someone who doesn't believe that I exist is almost as illrelevant
to me as the opinion of someone who doesn't believe that they themselves
exist. Why, If they are correct, did they WRITE about it. In WRITING about
it, they assert that I exist; That proves them wrong. So, why are they
writing books about stuff that they obviously know is wrong? They may
question that I exist, but they seem to have no doubt that my MONEY exist.
Do you agree 1+1 = 2? If you don't, then the scientist have no reason to
talk to you. If you do, you accept one of the "givens" of science and
mathmatics. If a person questions the existance of the one, then let him go
catch his own food...
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 81 Sun Mar 24, 1991
E.UTHMAN [Ed] at 16:50 EST
I am just jumping in here, but would like to respond to Ariel. I agree that
science and religion have in common the process by which conclusions
are drawn by applying axioms accepted on faith. I.e., the concept of
the Holy Trinity and Euclid's postulates stand on similar grounds of
legitimacy. _However_ axioms used in the scientific method are unique in
that they apply for all individuals through all times, while most
religious axioms (in fact _all_ that do not derive from common human
experience) apply only for certain peoples and at certain times.
Also, even the most hallowed scientific axiom is discarded when it is
proved not to apply in _every_ instance. Problems with religious axioms
are usually dealt with by the formation of splinter religions. Some group
continues to practice the old, discredited ways, no matter what.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 82 Sun Mar 24, 1991
S.LAJOIE1 [Fresno] at 20:50 EST
Or, depending on your point of view, they start practicing new, discredited
ways.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 83 Mon Mar 25, 1991
C.HAMPTON3 [Ariel] at 09:44 EST
Fresno, my point is that if you're accepting something as true simply
because it's obvious to you, without further proof, you're accepting it as
an axiom, or, in religious language, as a matter of faith.
That being the case, you're in the same position as those existentialists
and nihilists you just dismissed, unless your premises are closer to true.
I have no problem with axioms, or taking something on faith. I have a big
problem with someone offering a position taken on faith as something
scientifically provable, and a number of individuals do just that when they
offer the theory of evolution as 1) proven fact (which it isn't, although I
believe it to be to a great extent true) and as 2) an explanation of the
origins of life and the universe, which it most decidedly doesn't offer.
Ed, good point. Actually, I don't agree that scientific principles applied
to all people at all times necessarily (there's so little evidence about
this one way or the other), but I do agree that, in the scientific world
mistakes seem to get corrected more as a matter of course and with less
upheaval than in most religious groups.
I will point out, though, that much of the reason scientific principles have
such universal appeal is that they attempt to explain a whole lot less than
religious principles. ;>
Ariel
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 84 Mon Mar 25, 1991
S.LAJOIE1 [Fresno] at 21:21 EST
Assuming that a person is not spending their lives contemplating their
navels, most people do not have to accept it as a matter of faith that
1+1=2. I am not in the same position as the existentialist and nihilist.
Science does offer an explaintion as to the orgins of life and the universe
that does not require any supposition about turtles, Gods, or any other
fantastic fairy tales. It doesn't explain everything, but what it does
explain is done with a fair degree of certainty. It is important in science
to know what you don't know. It is important to religion to explain what
you don't know.
It is, of course, pointless to argue about science with someone steeped
in superstition.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 85 Mon Mar 25, 1991
R.CHEVRIER [Ditto Head] at 23:24 EST
>> DAEDWARDS [Don]
>> Find a large, clear, clean container that you can seal airtight. In the
>> bottom of it, set a dish of salt water [etc....]
This actually shows how a substance (salt water) will break down,not how it
was formed. I could say the same thing about the MT. Rushmore example.
Leave Mt. Rushmore for a few million years and you will find at the bottom
of the mountain fine sand and on the top of the mountain...no faces. My
point is that what we are trying to discover is how the complex makeup of
molecules that form a human came together not what makes them decay at
death. Your example of order may be our definition of order in an
office...every thing of like kind in one place but the definition of order
I'm trying to explain is like the order caused when many unlike things are
put together to form a complex object, ie a computer or a living being.
>> Obviously, God wants us to believe that the scientists have the
>> general idea - so those who don't, are opposing the will of God.
If we get into the "will of God" here we WOULD have to go to the
ethics & Religion RT. There is an obvious responce to this statement is
but requires delving into theology.
>> Transitional species: Homo Erectus.[etc]
Homo Erectus? Is that species alive or did we make up a drawing based
on some bones that could be a monkey or a human that couldn't find a
chiropracter at the time? ;-)
>=>=>=> Randy Chevrier <=<=<=< --==<< Thanks, Co-Pilot! >>==--
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 86 Mon Mar 25, 1991
R.CHEVRIER [Ditto Head] at 23:24 EST
>> Fresno
Re: God's existance
>> It must be so obvious that it cannot be subject to serious dispute. I
>> have encountered many that it is not obvious to, some would say that is
>> why it is a matter of faith.
I say the same thing about evolution. It is not obvious to me nor to many
scientists that are not allowed to comunicate that through the normal
scientific channels. There are so many loopholes in the evolutionary model
that one must accept it on faith.
>=>=>=> Randy Chevrier <=<=<=< --==<< Thanks, Co-Pilot! >>==--
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 87 Mon Mar 25, 1991
M.DIANA2 [Mark] at 23:56 EST
Fresno, re the laws of physics thing: Quantum physics doesn't come close to
explaining the behavior of particles under the extreme conditions supposed
to exist immediately after the Big Bang. Some of the particles we suppose
existed then we haven't even observed, so how can we explain their behavior?
I think it a serious mistake, particularly from the scientist's view, to
assume that what we know know we not be proven wrong in the future. The
chances are that most of it will be proven wrong. Look at Einstein, Newton,
Galileo, etc. and all the theories they proved wrong. Surely more will come
along.
As for the interstellar dust, can you tell me where you read that? I'd be
interested tp read it myself. I don't believe that's proven yet.
I don't want to spoil this discussion or anything, but I haven't seen a
mention of Scientific American in quite a while. Just what are we discussing
here?
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 88 Tue Mar 26, 1991
DAEDWARDS [Don] at 03:05 EST
Ditto Head:
>This actually shows how a substance (salt water) will break down,
>not how it was formed.
It was not intended to show how salt water was formed OR how it breaks down.
It was intended to show matter moving from an unordered state (mixed salt
and water) to an ordered state (salt over here, water over there) without
the intervention of intelligence.
Your Mt. Rushmore example, on the other hand, shows matter moving from an
ordered state (recognisable faces) to an unordered state (a pile of sand -
which pile wouldn't form, by the way, because the sand would blow or wash
away, and be mixed with surrounding dirt, at approximately the same rate
that it is formed.)
Both, by the way, are effects of non-closed systems. In the earth as a
whole, the amount of rock is roughly constant; Mt. Rushmore removed from
the atmosphere, isolated, and protected from radiation, would not decay.
It's Mt. Rushmore, considered as a separate entity but immersed in an
atmosphere which provides wind (including blown sand), rain, and constant
variations of temperature and solar radiation, that suffers a problem. And
it's the solar energy being pumped into that transparent vessel during the
day, but leaking out at night, which separates the water from the salt.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 89 Tue Mar 26, 1991
E.MERRILL [][] Eric [][] at 04:45 EST
"Faith: not *wanting* to know what is true."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
|\
|\ ric
\
To err is human; to moo, bovine.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 90 Tue Mar 26, 1991
M.FEINS [Marty] at 21:10 EST
Eric, what would we do without you..
M
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 91 Tue Mar 26, 1991
C.HAMPTON3 [Ariel] at 21:53 EST
Baloney, Fresno. In this century custom has simply made the non-
explanation of some evolutionist philosophers so customary in most people's
minds that they don't stop and ask if it actually says anything about
origins, or about anything at all.
Ariel
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 92 Tue Mar 26, 1991
S.LAJOIE1 [Fresno] at 22:43 EST
Ditto Head: I don't expect anyone to accept evolution as obvious. It is not
obvious. I expect that people would accept some of the very basic
assumptions of science as obvious. If I say "this is a ruler, and we can
measure distance with it." and someone responces "yes, of course." Then I
have a basis of understanding. If someone answers "You know, many people
doubt that you exist, and I'm not so sure that I exist, so let's put away
the ruler and work this out..." we do not have the basis to do science.
My point is, science starts out pretty simple. There is no need to start
out by saying "There exist a God..." and then define qualties to God. That
there is a God is taken as a matter of faith. I look at this and say,
"which of the many gods that people have faith in is the one that YOU have
faith in?"
Mark: There is no need to go back to the big bang to point out the flaws in
quantum mechanics. All that is needed is to increase to very high speeds and
you get the same thing. I hope that I didn't say that science is complete.
It isn't. The thing about Science is that it is perfectly all right,
infact, at times demanded, that we say, "we don't know". The flaw in Q.M.
that you point out is one of them. It's not science, however, to fill in
all of the gaps by presupposing a God.
Ariel: Opps! I must have hit a nerve. Sorry. Guess I was rude. Unfortunatly,
science does not always provide answers as fast as we would like about the
things that we would like to know about. It's not that it's customary, it's
just that we don't know everything. We do know a few things, and one is that
species have decended from other species due to genetic change and natural
selection.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 93 Tue Mar 26, 1991
C.HAMPTON3 [Ariel] at 23:14 EST
Nietzsche is, in my opinion, the extreme example of sophomorism. ;>
Ariel
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 94 Wed Mar 27, 1991
C.HAMPTON3 [Ariel] at 22:14 EST
Sorry, Fresno. I shouldn't have responded that sharply. Actually, I don't
have much argument with your statement about evolution. I object to the
idea that evolution proves how the universe was made, or says anything about
origins of it. It doesn't. But, IMHO it's the most sensible explanation
I've heard of the process of change, at least in life on this planet. I
don't "know" it to be true ;>, but nothing in science is ever known
absolutely.
I should have defined my terms more carefully. I'm a humanities type, not a
scientist, and when I speak of origins I generally mean what Aristotle
called, "the prime mover", not simply the reason that most people have two
eyes and one nose. ;>
Ariel
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 95 Wed Mar 27, 1991
M.DIANA2 [Mark] at 23:13 EST
Fresno...#92
I am in complete agreement with you. I used the Big Bang as it is the
example I'm most familiar with. I also agree that it is not science to fill
in the gaps by presupposing God.
Nevertheless, I think perhaps you're a little to hard on the possibility, if
you understand what I mean. There are plenty of things we can't explain, and
more we know only in part. There is sufficient evidence to suggest the
possibility of a God (or more than one, if you prefer), but only that, not
proof as you say. But the inability to prove something does not necessarily
mean it is not true. Just a thought.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 96 Thu Mar 28, 1991
E.UTHMAN [Ed] at 08:36 EST
To me, the strength of science is that is doesn't claim to understand
everything. The weakness of religion is that is does make such a claim.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 97 Sat Mar 30, 1991
R.CHEVRIER [Ditto Head] at 05:53 EST
>>> Don Edwards,
All this talk about closed and non-closed (open?) systems is a bit much for
me after a long day. The short of it is the question of the first bit of
matter. Where did it come from? Where was the sun and wind (the open
system?) to make it something new? It has to start someplace and all the
scientific theories in the world can't show that matter can come from
nothing.
I agree that the point at had is that the scientific thought for creation
is not allowed to be aired, even if it is refuted(sp?). If you think all
this creation science theory is bunk then let the scientists that believe
it publish their theories and make fools of themselves thus doing away with
them without uttering another word.
>=>=>=> Randy Chevrier <=<=<=< --==<< Thanks, Co-Pilot! >>==--
PS. I don't think the saltwater analogy is the right experiment to use to
talk about the order found in the universe and how it got here.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 98 Sat Mar 30, 1991
S.LAJOIE1 [Fresno] at 12:21 EST
Ditto Head: The creationist did publish and make fools of themselves. The
Journals and Scientific American (pop magazine) have a right to select
which articles submitted to them they will publish. There is usually a
review board that looks the articles over and selects worthy articles. Some,
like the Physical Review, have a rigorous standard and submittal process.
It would be unlikely that the Physical Review would publish a "creation
theory" paper right next to a good paper on cosmology. The shock to their
readers, from going from the decent paper to creation theory would blow a
lot of cerebral cortexes.
As for matter coming from nothing--- well, depends on how you define
nothing. Matter pops in and out all of the time on the atomic scale. All you
need is enough energy.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 99 Sun Mar 31, 1991
J.TRACHMAN [Jay] at 19:59 EST
==>I have no problem with axioms, or taking something on faith
Ariel,
Seems to me you're equating axioms with faith -- a false premise. An axiom
is something without which discussion cannot proceed. "Existence is." "A
thing is what it is." "Contradictions cannot exist, in the same context, at
the same time."
These are not matters of faith; they are fundamental to the nature of
existence and discussion. They are unprovable because without first assuming
their validity, no rational discussion can proceed.
Faith means to believe in something without proof -- *regardless* of its
nature. As long as you lump the two together, you're going to get some might
strange conclusions -- as, IMHO, you have.
==>Nietzsche is, in my opinion, the extreme example of sophomorism
Nietzsche is peachy... but Goethe is murder...
==>It has to start someplace and all the ... theories ... can't
If the universe is defined as the totality of existence, and if time is a
relationship between things which exist... Then it is a contradiction to ask
what came "before" existence.
It makes a pretty question; granted people have been debating it for eons
and will probably continue to do so, but it remains... a logical
contradiction.
Logic would seem to command that the universe "always" existed, because the
concept of time has no validity without it.
Best,
JT
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 100 Mon Apr 01, 1991
C.HAMPTON3 [Ariel] at 21:27 EST
Jay, so is faith. That's the point. Until something is taken as given,
whether you choose to call it axiomatic or a matter of faith, there's no
place for any reasoning, observation, or experimentation to start.
Ariel
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 101 Tue Apr 02, 1991
R.CHEVRIER [Ditto Head] at 04:40 EST
Fresno,
I think the multiple conversations are getting confused here. You
responded to me about the people who question whether we actualy exist, but
I never talked about those crazies. I DO believe we must start with known
foundations of science to have a frame of reference and our existance is
one of the first absolutes that we must accept as self evident.
Though I live my normal everyday life with the presumption that God exists
and therefore requires certain actions from me, I would not want to start
any discussion of the science of origins with that assumption. As a
Christian, I know God exists and that we are his creation. This I know
from faith and 15 years experiencing that faith worked out each day. It's
hard for me to take God out of science but I try. But I would hope you
would try to see that I base the evidence for creation, not on the premis
that God exists, but that the physical makeup of the universe shows
evidense of having a begining; a creation if you will. Back to the
subject. If that physical evidence has scientific validity and can imply
(maybe not right word) a theory for the origins of life, then why does the
scientific comunity refuse to let it be heard?
>=>=>=> Randy Chevrier <=<=<=<
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 102 Tue Apr 02, 1991
R.CHEVRIER [Ditto Head] at 04:41 EST
Ed, I must differ with you about religion claiming to know everything. Why
do bad things happen to good people? Why doesn't God show up at a
scientific seminar to state his case for creation?
These kinds of questions can be answered with a degree of "biblical wisdom"
but not with total surety. There are many things Christianity can't answer
for sure. Anyone that is honest with you will tell you that Christianity
doesn't answer all your questions, it allows you to have a realationship
with the one who does. Not knowing the answers is easier when you know the
one who does is looking out for you. Enough with religion; just enough to
say we Christians, if honest, don't claim to know it all.
>=>=>=> Randy Chevrier <=<=<=<
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 103 Tue Apr 02, 1991
R.CHEVRIER [Ditto Head] at 04:43 EST
Fresno, I'm so far behind on these messages that I'm sure you have trouble
knowing what comment I am responding to. ;-) You mentioned that matter
can "pop in and out...on the atomic scale. All you need is enough energy".
Since this had to do with the origins of the universe, where did the energy
come from?
>=>=>=> Randy Chevrier <=<=<=<
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 104 Tue Apr 02, 1991
E.UTHMAN [Ed] at 08:30 EST
Randy: But the Christian party line about questions such as "why do good
things happen to bad people?" is "it is not ours to question the actions of
God, who is so far above us that we can't possibly understand His motives.
When we attempt to understand Him, we are committing a sin [i.e., eating
from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge]" To me, this is an official know-it-
all attitude, only what Christianity assumes to know is that we _can't_ know
about some things.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 105 Tue Apr 02, 1991
Y.GREENWOOD [AH JAHN] at 23:06 EST
I agree with Jay's message 99-
but-
The developing logic of astrophysics is not at all mysterious, yet it says
the universe is NOT infinit. What is outside the universe? Nothing. No, I
didn't say a vacuum, I said NOTHING. There ain't no outside.
As we pass backwards in our examination of time and view the last(first) few
micromicro...micro seconds, when the universe occupies a pinhead, the laws
change. What was "before"? possibly NOTHING. There just ain't no before.
But, Ariel, with Faith there just ain't nowhere for reasoning, observation,
or experimentation to start at all.....There is an enormous difference
between an axiom system and faith. It is NOT just "calling" it one or the
other. We have no faith in axioms at all, don't you understand? We just
USE them, as long as they are useful..We select and choose among them until
we have a set that is internally consistent, which does not mean true, then
we use the set if it is USEFUL. USEFUL for what? for providing pictures of
the past that match observable junk on the ground now, through symbol
manipulation, not father figures.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 106 Wed Apr 03, 1991
E.UTHMAN [Ed] at 08:37 EST
BTW, I jumped into this topic apparently beyond the major thesis of the
original argument. Despite the fact I'm non-religious, I _do_ think the
gentleman should have gotten the job with Sci Am, if in fact he were the
most qualified for the position, based on his accomplishments in scientific
pedagogy.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 107 Wed Apr 03, 1991
S.LAJOIE1 [Fresno] at 21:24 EST
Ah Jahn: >What outside the universe? Nothing...
Humm. Not sure about that. Didn't know that anyone has ever been able to
leave our universe and send a signal back yet. Well, I'm pretty sure that
it's never been done because we don't know how to do it yet.
As for the first few microseconds, (or nanoseconds, or ...) the laws don't
change, it's just that the conditions then were so different than what we
are now familiar with, that the equations that we now use to express those
laws don't apply very well.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 108 Wed Apr 03, 1991
C.HAMPTON3 [Ariel] at 22:11 EST
No, Ah Jahn, without faith of some sort, there's no ground for reasoning to
stand on and no place for it to start.
Ariel
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 109 Wed Apr 03, 1991
S.LAJOIE1 [Fresno] at 22:23 EST
It is not faith to assume that you can measure a length, a period of time,
or the mass of an object. It is an axiom, a self evident truth. These things
form the basis of science. Faith is when you make the jump to believe in
things for which there is no proof, and is not a self evident truth.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 110 Thu Apr 04, 1991
C.HAMPTON3 [Ariel] at 22:00 EST
Fresno, an axiom, a self evident truth, is in no functional way different
from a matter taken on faith. The only distinction I can see is that what
you call an axiom is more widely accepted. The level of proof available in
either case is equal -- none.
Ariel
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 111 Fri Apr 05, 1991
E.UTHMAN [Ed] at 08:41 EST
But proper axioms cannot contradict each other, and articles of faith do so
all the time, especially when compared across cultures.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 112 Fri Apr 05, 1991
S.LAJOIE1 [Fresno] at 21:17 EST
Proper axioms are obvious. A debate over the ability to measure a length
with a meter stick would be very short. (Do you care to tell me that I
can't?) Yet, a debate over the existance of God has filled volumes, and
reached no conclusions. People all over the world have developed means to
measure lengths of distance and time-Yet there is very little agreement on
the existance of God, or what the qualities that a God would have. Face it,
Ariel, Axioms ARE different from faith.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 113 Sat Apr 06, 1991
C.HAMPTON3 [Ariel] at 12:30 EST
Again, Ed, a matter of definitions. In physics, after all, many
Aristotelian principles were considered axiomatic until Newton and Galileo
came along, and then many Newtonian principles were considered axiomatic
until this century . . . .
As to articles of faith contradicting each other, sure, if you insist on
comparing articles of faith from Islam and Buddhism, or from Christianity
and Taoism . . . .
On thing I will grant the scientific community, though. Probably because of
the above-named embarrassment and others, they're much better about not
elevating something to the level of an "article of belief" until it has
stood a longer test. And, they tend to see the contradictions. ;>
Ariel
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 114 Sat Apr 06, 1991
S.LAJOIE1 [Fresno] at 19:47 EST
Ariel: Aristotal was more Saint than Scientist. He believed that experiments
were not necessary, it could all be done in the head. And I think you have
Newton's theories of gravitation and the theory of Newtonian mechanics
confused with axioms. A theory is not an axiom.
Many of the theories mathematics were developed independantly. Newton
developed calculus independently of Leibniz. They arrived at the same
conclusions because both worked from axioms. Most scientific theories "come
together." Most religions spread apart. The divinity of Christ was
determined by a war between two "Christian" armies. Scientific theories are
not proved by war as some articles of faith have been. Some of the
strongest religious arguments against scientific theories involved burning
the Scientist. Check out Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake for
saying that the Earth moved around the sun rather than the other way around.
Toasted by the church in 1600. (He did say some other things that ticked
people off too...) Galileo was faced with the same fate, but only got life
imprisonment because he recanted.
Scopes monkey trial also comes to mind. Seems that the scientist lost that
case too.
No wonder that Scientific American wouldn't give the guy their space in
their magazine.
An axiom is something so blatenly obvious that you can't reject it. A theory
is derived from experiment and axioms. Axioms don't really change, but we
may gain a better understanding of what we are looking at as we learn more.
Even Atoms are part of the "atomic theory of matter."
Hope this clears it up for you.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 115 Sun Apr 07, 1991
C.HAMPTON3 [Ariel] at 12:42 EDT
Fresno, *I* don't have Newton's theories confused with an axiom. The
majority of people alive for a couple hundred years did, though.
Ariel
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 116 Sun Apr 07, 1991
S.LAJOIE1 [Fresno] at 13:34 EDT
Then, what is the problem? We seem to agree that axioms are much more basic
than Faith. In science, there are axioms - Axioms are the type of thing that
a science teacher would find it hard to argue about, thinks like: 1) It is
possible to find the length of this table (with a certain amount of error)
with a meter stick. 2) It is possible to measure time with a stop watch.
(again with error)
-With these two, a teacher could talk for days about dynamics, doing
experiments and making measurements. He would, of course, have to assume the
body of mathmatics, (1+1=2, and so forth for axioms).
When the science teacher goes on to the Mass/Force axiom, (F=ma) he can
really start talking for years. With experiments, he can go pretty far.
There are also LAWS in science. A LAW is closer to Faith than an Axiom.
Whereas an Axiom is stupidly obvious, a law is not. Laws become Laws because
they show an underlying principle of physics and they would cease to become
Law as soon as someone can prove that they have observed them not to be
true. Like the Four Laws of thermodynamics. If someone came up with a good
working perpetual motion machine of the first kind, then we would toss out a
law or two. So far, no one has, (and we've tried) so they stand as laws.
Most of the rest is Theory. Theories are open for argument.
Scientist have been able to develop computers, cars, telephones, and so
forth from all of this knowledge that they have built up. Faith is
interesting in that nothing tangible ever comes from it.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 117 Sun Apr 07, 1991
Y.GREENWOOD [AH JAHN] at 20:19 EDT
Fresno,
"Law" is merely a line in a page of "Theory"-- they are both so well
supported by experiment that we rarely doubt them, but are subject to being
thrown out in the face of experimental contradiction.
You are confusing "Hypothesis" with "Theory", as is common in the popular
misconception. "Oh, that's just theory" is almost as bad as "Don't confuse
me with the facts..." At the least the latter implicitly recognizes the
self-deception.. "Theory" is *almost* interchangable with "fact". Really.
Y.G., Ph.D.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 118 Sun Apr 07, 1991
CHERNOFF [Paul] at 20:34 EDT
Y.G., you could give use a brief summary on what makes a scientific fact?
Paul
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 119 Mon Apr 08, 1991
Y.GREENWOOD [AH JAHN] at 19:27 EDT
Paul,
a fact is an observation; I observed the left end of the meter stick on a
visual line of sight with the left edge of the desk top, and the right edge
of the desk top on a visual line of sight with the inscribed line on the
meter stick labeled "37".
I infer the conclusion that the desk is 37 cm wide- which of course is not
a fact, although the statements are *nearly* interchangeble.
A *model* is a set of statements which are hypothesized to emulate the
behavior of a system. When and if an exhaustive set of experiments
demostrate that the model produces emulated results that match the results
of experiment within experimental errors, the model becomes a theory.
Theory predicts facts accurately.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 120 Wed Apr 10, 1991
Y.GREENWOOD [AH JAHN] at 04:21 EDT
Here is my Confession of Faith: God exists and created the Universe, as it
is- and don't let that "as it is" confuse you.
It includes the past through tomorrow, 20,000,000,000 years ago as a
pinhead to 20,000,000,000 years (a few billion years more or less) from now
as another pinhead.
Further than that deponent sayeth not- No one knows how or why God did it,
especially a crowd of primitive priests writing and/or selecting documents
1500 to 4000 years ago.
Belief in God is not the point. Creationist are not defending a belief in
God, they are defending a belief in the myths of primitive civilizations
3000 years gone.
Moses copied his ideas of creation from the myths of the civilizations that
surrounded the early Hebrews. Creationists believe in the myths of pagans.
The social rules of the old testament are more valid- they are based on
experience. A little harsh, perhaps neccessarily.
The laws of thermodynamics are laws of PROBABILITY. LOCAL decrease in
entropy, ie, increasing organization on a local scale, is not at all in
contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics. Actually, when the waste
products of living systems is included in the calculations, which the theory
requires, the entropy DOES increase, ie, disorder, in the sense defined by
thermodynamics, DOES increase.
That is another red herring put up to the layman.
In point of fact, the random action of wind and rain does sometimes build
sand castles. These are NOT the result of intelligent action.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 121 Wed Apr 10, 1991
E.UTHMAN [Ed] at 08:32 EDT
Ah Jahn: I agree with you, although I'm not sure whether the universe is
closed or open.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 122 Tue Apr 23, 1991
KURTAMESBURY at 20:06 EDT
Hmmm... This used to be about some guys named Mims who tried to write for
Scientific American... but wasn't good enough...
But, I don't mind...
Hey, all this stuff religious baloney is pretty tired... religion is the
first refuge of the intellectually lazy.
Now, that doesn't mean every theory posited by science is correct... or that
any of it is correct. What makes science useful is the way it predicts
behavior (which is why psychology is only a pseudo science... maybe
someday...). Without this predictability, science would be just as useless
as religion.
But what IS religion? I readily admit, there's no difference between
axiomatically "assuming" science is valid and axiomatically assuming
religion is valid. The difference is that science can be used to do useful
things... like build the monitor you're reading this on.
Keep in mind that science and religion are not the ONLY possible axiomatic
systems. One could assume any set of axioms. Once assumed, the axioms are
unassailable in the axiomatic system they define. However, if the axioms are
too foreign to human thought, they won't be easy to communicate.
The bottom line is this: The scientific method and its axiomatic
underpinnings are useful because they are predictive. Religious axiomatic
systems are useful because... <insert rebuttal here>
Kurt
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 123 Tue Apr 23, 1991
S.LAJOIE1 [Stuart] at 21:10 EDT
No. Science axioms are obvious. Time, length and mass are considered to be
measurable. Those are the axioms of physics. Religious articles of faith are
not nearly so easily agreed upon.
We got off subject because it was suggested that "creation science" is as
valid as evolution, and as such should be published in Sci. Am.. The
argument seemed to hinge on the validity of ones assumptions.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 124 Tue Apr 23, 1991
KURTAMESBURY at 23:14 EDT
Well, I can't say I agree. Anytime someone says something is, "obvious",
it's a pretty good bet it isn't. I think you are confusing "fundamental"
with "obvious". The fact that human cultures have existed with no concept
of time other than "day" or "night" (or "moons", for that matter), or that
the term "foot" derives from a standard as arbitrary as the length of the
sovereign's foot, or that even in America, most people cannot distinguish
between "weight" and "mass" - these should cause you to reconsider how
"obvious" time, length and mass are. (Quick, what is the unit of mass in the
English system? Did you say "pounds"? Heh! When was the last time you
measured the mass of something... in slugs!)
What science is long on, and religion correspondingly weak, is self-
examination. How many religions do you know of that actively challenge
their own tenets on a daily basis?
From a purely axiomatic approach, one can develop any kind of system
imaginable - and even some which aren't imaginable! For instance, most of
physics could be explained in terms of suitably defined "fairies". One of
the aspects of their definition would naturally be that they are
indetectable. There. An new system. Fairies are responsible for slowing
down molecular movement in thermally excited material and speeding up
molecular activity in nearby matter. You can call it thermodynamics,
thermal gradient, Brownian motion - but I could call it "The dance of the
tempreture Fairies". What's the difference?
And of course, to keep all of the Fairies dancing in perfect harmony, we
have gnome choreographers, who direct the dance... etc.
Occam's Razor: "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." Or, in
more modern verbiage, don't make things more complicated than they have to
be. Anyone who can visualize a god directing the fate of the universe can
likewise contemplate fairies doing it all, or invisible hedgehogs, or
caterpillers... and if you accept their existence AXIOMATICALLY, they, by
definition, cannot be disproven, because to do so would be to destroy the
system.
But what does it add to make things more complicated? When an inanimate
model adequately describes the operation of a physical principle, why is it
necessary to posit intelligence, where none is needed?
Of course, we all have "faith" in our own senses. Don't we? We've never
been fooled by optical illusions or the like, have we? I think the
question of what constitutes a valid fundamental assumption is far from
obvious. Of course, what constitutes a VALID assumption is hotly contested.
So, as far as religion goes, I am willing to say that your god, ("whatever
you conceive him to be - hairy thunderer or cosmic muffin") is JUST as valid
as physics fairies. And when your god can tell you what will happen when I
wire up a circuit, just so, or mix two chemicals together, or any of the
billions of other things that science can predict, then I may consider it
useful to believe there is a god. Until then, sir, I do not.
Tell your fairies I wish them well.
Kurt
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 125 Wed Apr 24, 1991
S.LAJOIE1 [Stuart] at 01:10 EDT
Axiom: 1: a maxim widely accpted on its intrinsic merit. 2: A proposition
widely accepted as self-evident.
You may be interested in knowing that pounds can be used as a mass
measurement. It's a simple factor of g. A few text books use this term, but
not all, so it's confusing.
I don't know why you are going on about faries. No one said that they were
proposing that articles about faries be printed in Scientific American.
There may have been a discussion about Maxwell's demon, however. Please keep
in mind that Maxwell was not suggesting that a demon actually existed.
It is obvious that you can measure time, length and mass/force. For proof,
I point to several "stone hinge" like structures that have occured all over
the world and in many cultures through out primitive man's existance. All
require precise measurement of space and time. That space and time can be
measured is obvious to most people, and requires no proof. To those who
question this, I offer a ruler and a clock. Go figure it out. As for
mass/force, (either can be used as a axiom to prove the other) I offer
gravity. Most people have learned that to fall down hurts.
Your faries are not obvious to me, so that they cannot be axioms.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 126 Wed Apr 24, 1991
KURTAMESBURY at 02:33 EDT
Stuart:
Notions of time, length and mass are as variable as the person you ask.
It wasn't until the 1600's that men like Galileo, Leibnitz, Descartes and
Newton began to put this world on sound scientific footing. Until that
time, the religious viewpoint was the "self-evident" Axiom. You suffered
because you offended god, or because of the night vapors, or because you
needed a bleeding. They though von Leevenhoek was a nut case.
Is 150 pounds a lot of weight? Is 10 miles far? Is an hour long? When you
lift it? When you drive it? When you spend it waiting for the doctor?
Sure, we may agree that weight, distance and time exist, as concepts. But
we don't necessarily agree what they mean. For example, suppose I ask you
this distance between two points on a sphere. How do you measure it? As a
chord? Great circle? Random path? If you run 10 miles, but do it on a
circular track, how far have you traveled from your starting point? Does
the suitcase you check in Denver weigh the same when it gets to San
Francisco? What, your gravitational constant isn't constant? And when you
count the seconds it took to run around the track, or fly to San Fran, did
you measure them in number of radioactive atoms that had decayed?
The concepts of length, mass, time mean different things to different
people. If we use length as a measure of position, then we cannot even know
the mass/time/length information for basic particles... or we can't trust
Heisenberg. So what do you do when the fundamental Axiom, as defined, is
unknowable?
Kurt
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 127 Wed Apr 24, 1991
S.LAJOIE1 [Stuart] at 21:17 EDT
Go get a physics text, perhaps the Feynman lectures on physics. Start
reading, and try to get a grasp on what a fundamental observation is. You
must be able to measure.
I really don't know what your point is. Am I to understand that you do not
believe in rulers and clocks? If you don't, there is very little point in
discussing it with you.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 128 Thu Apr 25, 1991
KURTAMESBURY at 00:41 EDT
Actually, I was fortunate enough to attend lectures given by Feynman
personally. His "Internal Structure of the Proton" lecture was very
interesting.
However, the question of what I believe to be "fundamental" is no more
important than what you believe to be "fundamental". Some people believe
god is "fundamental". I feel sorry for those people, because I don't
believe that sort of "blind faith" is useful - especially as it tells them
nothing about what to expect in the future. But scientific blind faith is
little more than prostitution of the very idea that EVERY assumption is open
to question, and that there is no such thing as an "obvious" axiom.
In case I haven't made it clear, someone who assumes god can "prove" god.
Someone who assumes "not god" can "prove" "not god". The error is in
assuming your assumptions are somehow more valid. What you ought to
(empirically) point to is the fact that your RESULTS are more valid.
The scientific method is not based on assumptions. It is based on results.
Observations. When the observations get good enough, we often find we are
wrong. Newtonian physics gives way to quantum physics. Of course,
Newtoniam physics is still valid in the "big picture" but it "obviosly"
doesn't contain all of the answerers.
Incidentally, most of the models you have ever read about may have no
corresponding physical entity. What do I mean by that? Well, for instance,
we know about electrons, and think of them as "particles". This is
convenient, but it doesn't mean an electron has any properties we would
normally associate with the term "particle". In quantum physics, particles,
such as the electron, are represented as psi-squared functions. That is to
say, they are only mathematical entities. If we associate that with a
"particle" we may in fact foreclose certain properties that are abstractly
obvious. For instance, in elementary state transistion, the psi-squared
function (probability) of an electron appearing between orbitals is not
"small", it is ZERO. Now, that means the "particle" can never exist between
orbitals, but without state transistion, things like lasers are impossible!
So what do you do? Can you imagine a "particle" that exists at "A' and can
transition to "B', but may never exist anywhere in between?
Our model of "particulate" physics starts to break down, and is overcome
by de Broglie wave function analysis. But what has this to do with the
observable world? As little as the original postulate of electrons. The
model explains the result, and therein lies its utility. It predicts. It
tells us what will happen if....
Religion based world views fail in this regard. They tell us little, or
nothing about what will happen, and often obscure what DID happen.
However, people are prone to obscure the difference between science and
religion, citing such intangibles as "fundamental assumptions". This does
little but make science a substitute religion, or a religion in its own
right.
So, what's my point? The very foundations of science must ALWAYS be open to
question and challenge, or what you have isn't science anymore... it's
religion.
Kurt
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 129 Sun Apr 28, 1991
B.ROTHSCHILD [RETMAN] at 18:19 EDT
1. Mims was never going to write about biology. His was a different sort of
assignment. He was "fired" for public relations reasons, the argument being
that a religious organization would not hire an atheist to write for its
national journal. Early in the discuss ion someone asked about ACLU
position in the matter. They challanged SA publicly, arguing that Mims'
beliefs had nothing to do with the job they were hiring him for. I think SA
has some egg on its cover.
The creationists argue that God created the earth as it is about 6000
(10,000?) years ago, including the evidence for its greater age. This was
probably first proposed by Philip Henry Gosse, who wrote Omphalos: An
Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot (1857). He delared that Adam had a
navel as the first evidence of a history that did not happen (omphalos=navel
in Greek). Such arguments make God a deceiver, a being who for his own
purpose has gone out of his way to fool us. It is obvious that with such
arguments God could have created us each a second ago, filled with false
identites, etetc.
While the Big Bang is the current theory, there are others that argue for
continues creation (non-religious). The current difficulty with the Big
Bang is that there is no explanation for how the universe became clumped
into galaxies. The theory, as understood, cannot not account for this.
Further, the theory breaks down also in in determing the amount of matter
isn the universe. Dark matter (not currently detectable by humans) is
postulated to make up for what is missing.
Scientists attempt to make predictions. Their success or failure is not a
major issue, except insofar as they are willing to modify their theories in
the face failure/success. Kuhn pointed out that living scientists rarely
accept paradigm shifts; the issue is settled by the next generation.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 130 Sun Apr 28, 1991
KURTAMESBURY [ClayPigeon] at 18:38 EDT
The question of creation versus big bang is not likely ever to be settled.
The religious ask who made the big bang, the scientists ask where did god
come from? Every system is susceptible to the hypothesis that it is
contained within an even larger system (or so it seems). Penetrating the
next level just brings questions about the level beyond THAT level. There's
no solution. So why waste time on it?
I'd hate to think Mims was fired purely because of what he is... It could
happen. But I don't see any reason for it. On the other hand, even if not
writing about biology, it's easy enough to slip creationist junk into one's
writing. Maybe there were other conflicts... You know, "Johnny does not
work and play well with others..."
:) Kurt
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 131 Sun Apr 28, 1991
S.LAJOIE1 [Stuart] at 23:33 EDT
Retman: What?
How did the galaxies form? Gravity.
There now, can we dispence with the creationist argument?
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 132 Mon Apr 29, 1991
E.UTHMAN [Ed] at 08:55 EDT
Stuart: But gravity does not explain the heterogeneous distribution of
matter in space.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 133 Mon Apr 29, 1991
SHERMAN [Tom] at 11:17 EDT
Yo, Stuart . . .
Just a reminder that this topic isn't about evolution vs creationism but
about Scientific American's right to fire a writer who didn't share their
editorial point of view on the subject.
Tom
Ye Olde Sysop
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 134 Mon Apr 29, 1991
G.NEWMAN2 [Bonsaiman] at 18:26 EDT
It seems that people have trouble with the following concept: when you're
doing science, you check your religion at the door. Science as a whole is a-
religious. There is no such thing as the Buddhist Periodic Table, or
Christian chlorophyll, or the freezing point of Moslem water.
There is no evidence for a Noachin Deluge, or for an age for the Earth and
Universe that's not measured in billions-with-a-B of years. Every working
scientist I know, from Atheists to Jesuit priests to Buddhist monks accept
that. At least, no one has been able to provide any evidence for a Deluge or
a young Earth in the past 100+ years.
As I see it, SA was between a rock and a hard place. They declined to
contract (there was no hiring/firing involved) with someone who
practiced bad science. It was incidental that the bad science involved a
popular religion. I expect that they would have done the same thing with an
astrologer, Tarot reader, flat Earther, or Atlantis proponent.
And they should.
>Further, the theory breaks down in determing the amount of matter >isn the
universe. Dark matter (not currently detectable by humans) >is postulated to
make up for what is missing.
Not exactly, RETMAN.
Dark matter IS detectable. When scientists were determining the speed of
rotation of galaxies, they expected that the rotation would be like that of
our solar system: the outermost planets (stars, for the galaxies) move
relatively more slowly than the inner planets, because the gravititional
pull of the primary (the sun for our system, and the galactic center for a
galaxy) lessens with distance.
What they found was that the galaxy rotates as a whole, like a phonograph
record. The outermost stars move at the same pace as the inner ones.
That might be a good example, come to think of it. Imagine two systems: one
where the stars are dots, held by gravity, orbiting the very massive
galactic center. The other, the stars are dots on a transparent disk,
rotating as a whole. Even though we can't SEE the disk, we can detect its
existance by watching how the dots move.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 135 Mon Apr 29, 1991
KURTAMESBURY [ClayPigeon] at 19:56 EDT
I think it's interesting that an advocate of the religious viewpoint
attempts to make his argument in (not very convincing or accurate)
scientific terms. I know lots of people who can make scientific noises...
but far fewer who understand what they are saying. Part of this is due to a
culture that seeks the fruits of science without the work, the benefits
without the understanding. It is much easier to attack science without
understanding than it is to attack it with understanding. I don't know if
these words are original; certainly the thought is not, but I firmly
believe that:
Religion is the last refuge of the intellectually lazy.
Kurt
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 136 Mon Apr 29, 1991
B.ROTHSCHILD [RETMAN] at 21:32 EDT
Kurt, if there was another issue it was not discussed in public. If he were
hired, and tried to slip creationist junk into an article, surely the editor
would have spotted it and then had a reason to fire him. It was pretty
clear that they objected to his beliefs, being concerned about their image
in the scientific community.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 137 Mon Apr 29, 1991
S.LAJOIE1 [Stuart] at 21:48 EDT
Tom: Why pick on me?! :-) We got off subject about 100 messages ago.
ClayPigeon: Was it you or someone else who "corrected" me when I said that
Theories are fair game? Perhaps we ought to go back and review what a theory
is, huh, before we go on about people who make scientific noises.
Fact is; I would have little business writing for a Christian magazine, even
though I have studied the bible. I expect other people like the person in
question may have no business writing for a Scientific one. Like Bonsaiman
said, check it at the door.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 138 Mon Apr 29, 1991
KURTAMESBURY [ClayPigeon] at 22:26 EDT
Well, if the only topic here is SA versus Mims, I'd say the topic is
................DEAD!
My point was that religious folks try to use science to disprove science.
Why don't they try to use religion to disprove science instead? Is it
because the arguments would sound silly?
Part of the process of science is to guess about how something works, devise
a test that will determine whether the guess is right then perform the test
to see if the guess is right. Just using the terminology of science isn't
the same as going through the process. That's the "scientific noise" I
mentioned. Sorry if you misunderstood.
KurtKurt
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 139 Mon Apr 29, 1991
G.NEWMAN2 [Bonsaiman] at 22:44 EDT
Call me slow, but I just read the Sub: on the header; i.e.,
"Scientific American? Anti-Faith?"
Well of COURSE it is! ALL science is anti-faith. Whatever scientists do in
their private lives, our scientific careers are built on things that are
measurable. That's precisely why Creationism CANNOT be science. It requires
belief in a non-material entity.
Science is a search for truth -- within VERY limited boundries.
Former post stands; squared.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 140 Tue Apr 30, 1991
B.ROTHSCHILD [RETMAN] (Forwarded)
Bonsaiman, keep in mind that what he was going to do for SA had nothing to
do with practicing bad science, at least not for them. His articles would
not at all have anything to do with creaion "science."
There are gravitational effects that can't be accounted for, so dark matter
is postulated. It is perfectly acceptable to do so but I don't believe that
any evidence for it exists.
Kurt, I while generally agree with you, my impression is that most
scientists are religious people in some way. There is no logical
requirement for athiesm for one to be a scientist.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 141 Tue Apr 30, 1991
KURTAMESBURY [ClayPigeon] at 21:31 EDT
Retman,
I agree that there is no reason to be atheist. Atheism is, so far as I am
concerned, nothing but a different religion.
Most religions claim, one way or another, that the believer in THAT religion
somehow has "the answer". Atheists pull the same trick, but in a way, their
god is denial of a deity, in short, they have "the answer" too, and "the
answer" is, there is no god.
I don't believe the question of whether there is a god or not is answerable
or knowable. In that sense, I know less than any religious person or
atheist in existence, since I don't have an "answer". Given a virtually
unlimited number of choices regarding whose "answer" is right, the burden to
show that one religion is any better than the next, whether christianity or
atheism, is on the person who would claim their "answer" is correct. Until
some proof materializes, I'm not convinced of anyone's claim, and can only
regard the question of the existence of a deity as a question without
resolution.
This in effect makes all religions, atheism included, equally reputable in
the face of known facts. Since some of these equally valid belief
structures are mutually exclusive (I have yet to run across a practicing
Southern baptist who claimed to be an atheist, for example), it would appear
that all religions must be considered equally invalid as well.
I don't have a real problem considering the question of the existence of a
deity as unknown and unknowable. There are, for example, mathematical
theorems that have been postulated but never proven. Religious people remind
me of those who insist that the proposed theorem is true, no matter that it
is unproven. Atheists remind me of those who claim the proposed theorem is
false, even though their evidence is no better. I prefer to wait. If the
question is never answered in my lifetime, then I shall probably be beyond
caring. To be sure, this is unknown too, but one can drive oneself to
distraction trying to formulate the unknowable.
In the meantime, I admit to a certain amount of contempt for those who
steadfastly argue both sides of the god "theorem", neither having arguments
better or worse than the other, but wasting a great deal of time, and energy
and life on questions that will very likely never be answered; and
certainly, not by endless argument.
I suppose you would classify me as "agnostic", literally derived from
negation of "gnostic" by Huxley in 1869. I am given to understand that the
"gnostics" were a sect in the early days of christianity whose members
claimed special knowledge. Huxley wanted to indicate the inability to have
such mystical knowledge, hence, he coined the term agnostic.
As for scientists being "religious", bear only in mind that scientists are
human too, and it is a human failing to "wish" for a desired result, even if
that result is not to be. I believe that most humans never outgrow the need
for a father and mother, for bigger beings, gods if you will, who will watch
over them and assure them that everything will be all right. Perhaps
atheists are comparable to the rebellious stage of human development, when
the tendency is to deny the importance of everything one's parents have held
out as true. It's a difficult thing to be "alone" in the universe, and much
easier to create imaginary parents; infallible, all-powerful, forgiving, all-
knowing... Some would say it's a harmless delusion. Perhaps. Perhaps not.
But that is another topic.
Kurt
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 146 Wed May 01, 1991
CHERNOFF [Paul] at 20:11 EDT
Messages 142-145 have been moved to a new topic, Scient and Religion (topic
2). Let's continue to discuss religion and science there and keep to the
Scientific American actions here.
Paul
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 147 Wed May 01, 1991
KURTAMESBURY [ClayPigeon] at 21:35 EDT
Paul: THIS TOPIC IS DEAD! DEAD! DEAD! There was apparently only one
incident, it transpired at least half a year ago and it's been talked to
DEATH! (DEAD! I say, DEAD!) So, if you aren't going to permit these
meanderings, PLEASE, just KILL the topic, put it in a box and let's get on
to other things. Kurt
(DEAD! DEAD I say, DEAD! Your parrot is an EX-parrot...
.... or a Norwegian Blue... they like kippin' on their backs.)
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 148 Wed May 01, 1991
B.ROTHSCHILD [RETMAN] at 22:16 EDT
Kurt, nicely said. Perhaps we disagree on the meaning of the word,
"religion," but that is a small issue and not germane to the topic.
Prosletizers of any sort are a pain.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 149 Sat May 04, 1991
CHERNOFF [Paul] at 16:34 EDT
If this topic is really dead then it will be deleted during the regular
clean-up. But I am sure we had a recent message over whether SA was
exercizing censorship by canceling the writer s column.
Paul
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 150 Mon May 06, 1991
VKLINDSAY [Vern] at 03:14 EDT
If this topic is dead, it is because someone laid a cuckoo's egg here called
Creationism and the real topic starved to death.
The topic is not Evolution or Big Bang. The topic is not the obvious right
of a publisher to hire and fire as he chooses. The topic is about the
hypocrisy of a liberal "open minded" publisher, so prejudiced by his fear of
imagined ridicule, that he would deprive the SA of a talented and
experienced writer who has trained all his life to be the editor of the
Amateur Scientist column.
According to Terry Eastland in the Feb 91 issue of The American Spectator,
Piel had no doubts about Mims' qualifications until Mims mentioned a
Christian magazine in response to Piel's question about other non-technical
articles Mims might have written. There was never any question of Mims
writing about evolution or first causes for SA. Mims has never published
anything about these subjects. We're talking about the Amateur Scientist,
for crying out loud. How to build a microscope at home. How to observe the
rate at which Argiope aurantia bounces her web when disturbed. What to look
for in the coming solar eclipse.
As far as the "seepage" red herring, Mims has written a large number of
articles for most of the popular science magazines. Has anyone ever seen
the least indication of his religious beliefs in them? I gave it no thought
until this foolishness came up.
Well, it's all moot now. While the deep thinkers here were dancing on the
head of an imaginary pin, Mims began as editor of a new quarterly journal
devoted to amateur science. It is called "Science PROBE!" and is published
by Larry Steckler of Gernsback Publications, Inc. Mims wants to provide a
forum for high quality amateur science and to support projects for school
science fairs.
"We.....share a common vision that the pursuit and encouragement of amateur
science will stimulate an appreciation for science in general and lead to
new methods, instruments, observations and discoveries."
-- Forrest M. Mims III; editorial in Science PROBE! April 1991.
Science PROBE!
Subscription Dept
P.O. Box 54098
Boulder, Colorado 80321
$9.95/yr
515-293-0467
Vern <[email protected]>
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 151 Mon May 06, 1991
S.LAJOIE1 [Stuart] at 21:20 EDT
SA still has a right to contract with whom they please for the articles that
appear in their forum. Any dispute of this fact is little more than sour
grapes.
Those who resort to the "open mind" argument are usually defending a
position that any reasonable person would reject.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 152 Mon May 06, 1991
M.DIANA2 [Mark] at 23:15 EDT
Come on Stuart, that's a little far fetched, isn't it?
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 153 Tue May 07, 1991
S.LAJOIE1 [Stuart] at 00:33 EDT
Far fetched that SA has a right to contract with whomever they please, or
far fetched that there is a limit to being open minded?
I don't find either idea to be "far fetched". And if you had an open mind,
you would agree with me, Mark.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 154 Tue May 07, 1991
G.NEWMAN2 [Bonsaiman] at 00:54 EDT
What's far fetched about it? I contract with people all the time. I decided
not to contract with a guy the other day because I didn't particularly like
his suit. Nothing REALLY wrong with it, it just didn't hang right.
If it had been an "inside" position, I probably wouldn't have considered it.
If he had been the only qualified applicant, I wouldn't have had any choice.
Was I being "fair"? Absolutely not. I gave one guy a substantial contract
and denied it to another because I didn't like his suit. Purely subjective.
There are no ahortage of writers out there who would love to have a contract
with SA. Apparently, another mag has not only contracted with Mims but hired
him. Their circulation may fall because of it. It may stay the same. It may
reach unheard of heights as millions of Creationists rush to subscribe.
WHATEVER happens, the managing editor is going to have to defend his own
decision - and if subscriptions DO fall, the managing editor and Mims can
keep each other company in the unemployment line.
My own, personal definition of "fair" is: an annual event to exhibit
livestock, farm products, and crafts.
------------
Category 3, Topic 4
Message 155 Tue May 07, 1991
B.ROTHSCHILD [RETMAN] at 07:29 EDT
Vern, your account is more detailed than mine. Thanks for the thorough
description. Out of curiosity. What's the evidence that the publisher is
liberal or open minded. I don't recall seeing that in the Spectator
article, though it has been some time since I've looked at it.
------------
______________________________________________________________________________
End of TopicDigest.
______________________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed.
If you have any questions about this, please check out our Copyright Policy.
totse.com certificate signatures
|
|
|
About | Advertise | Bad Ideas | Community | Contact Us | Copyright Policy | Drugs | Ego | Erotica
FAQ | Fringe | Link to totse.com | Search | Society | Submissions | Technology
|
|
|
|
|
|
