[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 8/12/2005 07:50 AM, Doug Rudder wrote:
>This is the single most offensive post I've ever read (which is a shame
>since it comes from someone I've always respected).
You don't get out much, do you ;^)
(No offense intended! It's just that I have seen vast numbers of vastly
more offensive posts, many of them condemning me to an eternity of agony in
the name of a benevolent and loving deity in which the poster believes.)
>One can make (and many scientists have made) a solid, logical, and truly
>scientific argument that evolutionary theory itself is more religion than
>science.
Yeah, this is the same tired old argument that I hear from the creationists
all the time. When the current US administration hauls out its "many
scientists" who dispute whatever it is that the rich and conservative
dislike, everybody is supposed to cower and say "oh, there is such dissent
in the scientific community about this subject that we'd better not make a
decision about it". Bull! Scientific American (not exactly the most
liberal publication on the planet) recently reported that some very large
number of scientists (I don't recall the exact number, but I think that it
was well over 500) whose first name was "Steve" signed a letter stating
that their research supported the position that human activities were
greatly aggravating, if not actually causing, global warming. Since, as
S.A. reported, some very small percentage of the male population in the USA
is named "Steve", that suggests that a very, very large number of
scientists are in agreement with that statement. While that proves nothing
in and of itself, it demonstrates that hauling out "many scientists" means
absolutely nothing.
>Your comments are extremely religious in nature; you've taken
>unproven theory and portrayed it as the One Truth,
I take no position on what Len may or many not have said, but very, very
few scientists whom I know treat evolution (or for that matter, gravity!)
as "the One Truth". That's why "the theory of evolution" and "the theory
of gravity" are common terms in scientific literature. Instead, the vast
majority of scientists not employed by the current US administration (and,
for that matter, the vast majority of them...they're just not allowed to
express their opinions--ain't freedom a wonderful thing?) say that "the
theory of evolution is the best way put forward to explain the observed
facts about the relationships between living things". But they are
virtually all committed to continuing to gather facts, to revise their
theories to accommodate new observations, etc.
This is in absolute contrast to the Creationists, who say "this one book is
absolute truth, and I know so because I believe it to be so", therefore all
of the facts on the ground are unpersuasive.
>condemning all other
>positions as superstitions and its practitioners as mindless, evil,
>"hideously perverse" morons instead of caring parents and intelligent human
>beings.
Actually, I believe that caring parents and intelligent human beings can be
incredibly blind to the ignorance they possess and try to inflict on
others. Is that evil? Well, some people call wolves evil, others call
sharks evil. Is it mindless? I think that blind belief in something on
the sole basis of "I believe it" or "you have to have faith" is, in fact,
mindless.
>I guess what is most disappointing is that someone who seems to
>advocate broad thinking could be so narrow minded and spiteful. So much for
>scientific method and objectivity. This is the "I'm right and you're stupid
>so shut up" method of argument.
Did Len actually say that? I may have missed it, so I cannot refute
it. But that is exactly what the Creationists say to the scientists whose
research supports evolution as the best known description of the
relationships between living organisms: We are a lot of people, and we
believe that this one book is absolute truth, and we don't want our kids to
be exposed to anything that disagrees with it, so shut up (or we'll do harm
to you).
Grumble,
Jim
|
