Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

It's a con job. At least according to a physiologist from the Atomic
Energy Commission.

...

A con job not based on evidence (which is a no-no according to the
strict rules of science itself)...

...

... but a con job based on "DOCTRINE" (yes, as in religion):

...

The "con" apparently assumes that you will accept the DOCTRINES of
science without having seen any evidence atall.... as long as they are
called "theories".

So from there, you just might readily accept the notion that life also
evolved on some of the other planets with the help of GAIA, despite
the fact that you've yet to see even any evidence atall for evolution
itself to begin with.

There you have it... from religion to ~science.

JD is employing what has become a standard Creationist tactic. The
scientific argument against the fundamentalist religious view of Creation
is that there is no evidence for it, and that is a doctrine that relies
on blind faith to retain any semblance of credibility.

Creationists have tried for a long time to provide 'evidence' for their
claims - most of which is, of course, rooted in what the Bible says, and
a pre-defined (and unsupported) premise that the Bible is 'true' in the
literal sense. Their efforts to concoct this evidence are well known:
days that actually mean thousands of years, and so forth. But ultimately
they must fail, because their intention is to prove the truth of the
Bible, and of course they can only 'edit' it so far before it becomes
pointless to try to prove the truth of it.

So they are stuck. What can they do, if they cannot prove the truth of
their position? They can do what all good politicians do: attack the
other guy. There is probably an official debating term for it. If there
is I do not know what it is. I generally refer to it as 'reflecting' -
it is the newsgroup equivalent of the old playground tactic commonly
summed up as "I am rubber, you are glue, bounces off me, sticks to you".

Creationists have begun to employ such methods in their arguments by
taking any challenge made to them, turning it round, and throwing it back
with very little, if any, editing. One of the primary objectives of this
tactic is to 'prove' that "Science" - that great and terrible enemy they
feel they face as a result of their lack of faith in their god - is a
religion in itself. They aim to prove that science (particularly what
they like to refer to as "Evolutionism") is a strict order of belief,
governed by white-clad 'priests' who decide doctrine and enforce
adherence. They challenge science advocates to provide 'evidence' for
what they believe - and must, of course, ignore or ridicule the mass of
evidence that is usually submitted in response. Needless to say, demands
for Creationists to provide evidence are met with mockery, or in some
cases, Bible verses.

There are one or two valiant attempts by Creationists to 'prove' that
Genesis is a scientific textbook. The "4 God" page by a fellow called
John P. Boatwright still exists at http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/
(and I am still fascinated by the 'salad' reference), although Mr
Boatwright's once-regular contributions to this forum seem to have
ceased. His quest in life was or is to demonstrate that Genesis
scientifically proved this or that, and the lengths he went to to form
links between what science says and what the Bible says are quite
remarkable. One cannot help but think that there might have been a fine
scientific mind there, had it not been for the ravages of fundamentalist
belief. Nevertheless, Mr Boatwright was honest enough to state openly
that his work was biased, and it must be said that an enormous amount of
work and consideration went into this page, and several others along
similar lines.

Creationists claim that science is a religion - as though this defends
the status of their OWN religion. They claim that science advocates are
simply blind followers of dogma - as though this somehow excuses their
OWN blind adherence to dogma. It is a valid military principle: if you
cannot defend, attack. But while it may work in war, in debate it simply
highlights the weaknesses of one's own position.

And, of course, there must come the inevitable 'reality check'. An
objective observer will see that every demand for scientific evidence
that is made by Creationists is met - whereas Creationists can produce
nothing but the Bible to support their position. The world functions
consistently with what science has discovered - it does not function
consistently with the idea of Creation. And, of course, as has been said
many times, there is no reason why laying down the idea of literal
Genesis must necessitate renouncing a belief in God. Creationists cling
to the Genesis myth because it is easy for them to understand. If
Genesis is true, then we already know all we need to know about the world
and how it works. If Genesis is true, the faithful need not struggle
with complexity - they simply know it all. The idea that Genesis might
NOT be true is terrifying to Creationists. It would mean they do not
know their God as well as they think - and if one does not know
something, one cannot control it. Scientists, on the other hand, know
that they do not know everything, and that every scientific principle is
subject to correction - but (with the exception of those scientists
working in strict totalitarian societies through history) they are not
trying to defend an ideal. They are simply trying to discover how things
work. And, contrary to apparent Creationist belief, that does NOT
preclude a religious viewpoint.

Many scientists are atheistic. Many scientists are religious. Many
scientists - and those who advocate science while not necessarily being
qualified in it - are Christian, and believe that God created the
universe. But their faith is not built on sand. They do not NEED to
believe that God did everything in a way that primitive human societies
could understand. When they see the wonders of nature they may well see
the work of their God. And why should humans get to decide how God
reveals Himself to us? It does not matter what progress science makes -
there will always be a place for God for those who choose to believe in
Him. Always. Because God is not defined by what we know or what we do
not know. No piece of scientific information will ever 'disprove' His
existence, because if you are of a mind to believe in Him then the world,
the universe, exists BECAUSE of Him, in whatever form He chose to create
it. And if you choose not to believe then the universe is spectacular
all the same.

But please, if you DO believe in God, then have some faith in Him, and do
not discard His wonders because they are not consistent with the writings
in a book written thousands of years ago.

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 03:15:19 GMT, Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

It's a con job. At least according to a physiologist from the Atomic
Energy Commission.

"'Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life
are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest
hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.’
[Tahmisian called it] a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure
juggling." - Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting *T.N.
Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].

So you have to go to a physiologist from the AEC from 1959 to get
something. Can you tell us why you were reading a 45 year old issue of
the Fresno Bee? That is not the kind of stuff most people tend to read
for fun.

Anyway, Tahmisian was quite wrong. Try reading the latest issue of
Nature or Science or go to www.talkorigins.org for lots and lots of
evidence, some even in the last decade.

A con job not based on evidence (which is a no-no according to the
strict rules of science itself)...

"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as
to the evolutionary sequence of invertebrate phyla. We do not know
what group arose from what other group or whether, for instance, the
transition from Protozoa occurred once, or twice, or many times . . We
have all been telling our students for years not to accept any
statement on its face value but to examine the evidence, and
therefore, it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to
follow our own sound advice." - John T. Bonner, book review of
Implications of Evolution by G.A. Kerkut, in American Scientist, June
1961, p. 240. [John Bonner is with the California Institute of
Technology.]

So in 1961 we did not have evidence for some things. We have learned
lots in the last 42 years. For example, the entire field of
comparative genetics has occurred since then. There is still plenty we
don't know. For some reason you want to put your faith on the hope
that science will not find answers to some questions.

[snip]