Re: Asimov editorial on "scientific creationism"

On Apr 14, 12:08 pm, b...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
Not so. There exists in the world a series of thinkers (if I may use
that particular noun in this connection) who call themselves
"scientific creationists" and who insist on accepting the literal
words of the Bible.

And there are others who automatically deny the Bible, in a closed
minded manner.

Probably. I can only speak for myself. I was raised biblical
literalist. I ultimately rejected the bible (by the time I was 13 or
so) because it is refuted by reality itself. I suppose one can save it
as a metaphorical guide. But anyone who uses it to argue against
science is no friend of truth. Such people - yourself included -
sacrifice reality on the alter of emotional satisfaction.

I suppose the particular motivation varies from person to person, but
it is not reason that gets you where you are. Fear, or pride, or
comforting familiarity; I don't know. But it's not a love for truth.


For tactical reasons, they7 don't mention the Bible in their official
statements, since that would make their teachings religious in nature
and keep it out of the schools.

The only reason it would be "kept out of the schools" is because a
bigoted Supreme Court rammed their BS intepretation of the first
amendment down our throats in 1963. Fact is, the first amendment was
designed for religious FREEDOM, not religious CENSORSHIP.

Kids can read teh bible while riding the school bus, in study hall,
and during lunch. They can pray while walking to school, for the ten
minutes between classes, after finishing a test (unless they're last),
while eating lunch, and during pep rallies.

What *schools and *teachers cannot do is force kids to practice or
learn religion as religious instruction.




Nevertheless, they believe that the Earth is, at most, only 10,000
years old.

The Bible supports an old Earth.

Doesn't matter. It's not evidence.


They deny the validity of evolutionary doctrine and insist
that the various species of living things were separately brought into
existence by a "creator."

Since speciation has never been observed to any degree of rigorous
falsification, they are justified in this belief.

Yes, it has. And you've been provided the link. In any event, seeing
speciation is not the strongest evidence for evolutionary theory.


They are careful not to name the "creator,"
but does anyone suppose they mean Brahma, Zeus, or Marduk?

Ah. So you get to "suppose" what the other person means?

<snicker>

Are you seriously suggesting that the good folks in Alabama are thinkg
of anyone other than Yahweh, who speaks King James English with a
Southern accent, and his boy Jesus, the light-skinned, auburn-haired
hippie?


What if they are just recognizing that the scientific evidence does
not have a divine signature on it? Whoever put together the first DNA
strand, did not sign it "J" for Jehovah, "B" for Brahma, or anything
else? And this lack of a signature means we cannot specify which God
did it?

Nobody signed it at all. If there *were Somebody, and it were
important to Him/Her/Them, why didn't she/he/it say so?


They have no evidence for these claims, but rely for their arguments
on the denial of the validity of scientific findings they don't like
and on the distortion of those scientific findings they think offer
them some faint hope of support.

No evidence? What about IC structures? The ones that evolutionists
keep desperately inventing more and more complicated circuitous routes
by which they supposedly sprang into existence?

Evolution isn't straight forward. And they only seem complicated to
folks who thik there's a difference between dead atoms and live atoms.




Covering themselves with the tattered and dirty rags of denial and
distortion and calling it "science," they then proceed to attack real
scientists. They set up something they call "secular humanism" and
define it as a religion. They claim that the concept of evolution is a
"religious dogma" of secular humanism.

Guess what? Science is all about attacking dominant theories! The most
laughable thing ever is when a scientist desperately tries to defend a
particular "right answer." For example, the very existence of
talk.origins, designed to defend the "right answer" of evolution, is a
gigantic joke. Science must never be committed to any particular
"right answer." It must follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Here's some of the evidence:
Fossil evidence sorted by time, corresponding to progression of early,
simple forms to diversity of modern forms, with numerous clear
transitional series.
Fossil evidence showing progression of whole ecosystems, with various
types of fossils associated with only certain other fossils.
Fossil evidence corresponding to plate tectonics, magnetic striping,
and other geological evidence.
Nested hierarchy of morphology.
Nested hierarchy of all the genomes studied so far.
The fact that these two nested hierarchies *match* is evidence in
itself.
Vestigial organs, structures, molecules, and behaviors.
Life is unified by a sharing of fundamental polymers, nucleic acids,
protein catalysts, etc.

You might want to check out:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Do you have a testable model that fits these data? I do.


Note the peculiarity of this. We have a group of religious
fundamentalists who can find no worse label for the people they
denounce than "religion."

This is a case of using your own bigotry against you. Some scientists
are bigoted against religion. We are using their own prejudices
against themselves, by calling evolution a "religion."

You can call a dog's tail a leg, too, and it would have five legs. But
it would still walk on four and wag the fifth.


You see, evolutionist's blind faith in evolution has many of the same
characteristics of religion.

My blind faith is simply noting that the modern synthesis fits the
data, and is testable. One test you may have heard of was the
prediction of tiktaalik fossils - its location and characteristics.

For example, setting up newsgroups like
talk.origins to "defend" evolution. This is ridiculous,

How so? And we are not defending science so much as keeping the pests
out of the hair of folks on working science newsgroups.

and is
something a religious fanatic might do.

Or something which someone who cares about knowledge and the advance
of civilization might do. Or someone like me, who wants to understand
the field of science better, and to be able to respond to the various
lies of creationists.

Frightened religious believers
will do anything to defend the holy doctrine.

Projection seems to be quite common.

Many people even on this
newsgroup get "angry" at me for attacking evolution! What a howling,
laughable farce! Rolling on the floor, laughing my ass off!

The laughter sounds rather forced.


You see, in REAL science, they love attacking dominant theories. And
nobody got particularly angry at Einstein when he attacked and
demolished Newtonian physics. That is what real scientists do. They
don't defend crumbling theories,

Correct. The data I posted above hasn't gone away. Do you have a
testable, alternative model to fit those data? Neither does anyone
else.

and try to use the courts to censor
opposing views. (Dover).

Dover, of course, was to prevent religion from being taught in public
schools, which is illegal in the US.


Instead, they love to topple long-held scientific theories. That is
why evolution is NOT science. It exactly like a religion.

Except it's testable, fits the data, has no saints, holidays, vows,
hymns, or holy places, and rewards people for challenging the status
quo with scientific methodology. Otherwise you're correct.

The very
behavior of people on this newsgroup leaves no doubt about this. They
get angry at Creationists, call them names, et cetera, et cetera.
(DEFEND THE HOLY DOCTRINE OF EVOLUTION!) ROTF, LMAO.

Sounds more like whistling n the dark.




What do they hope to gain by this bit of semantic upside-downism-
scientists as "religious" and themselves as "scientific"?

Back at ya, Asimov. I liked your sci-fi, but your attempt at anti-
religious bigotry makes me want to quote Shakespeare: "Methinks he
doth protest too much."

You keep saying this. I notice that you don't actually offer an
alternative theory which fits the data.




First, they arrogate to themselves pretensions to logic and reason
they do not possess. Second, they make evolution (or, by similar
mislabeling, anything else they decide they don't like) into something
far worse than scientific error: they make it into a religious heresy.
How convenient!

How convenient, indeed. I would like to know, dear Asimov, why you
feel the need to "defend" the holy doctrine of evolution from these
religious infidels. Don't you know that real scientists love nothing
better than to destroy dominant theories?

Yes, but only using science. You keep missing the *process - that's
what science is all about.


So why is the holy doctrine of evolution immune from criticism, to the
point where the ACLU goes to court in Dover, in order to ram their
opinions down our throats by censoring ID, in which 70 percent of
Americans happen to believe?

Because ID is a religious scam. There is no research, no theory,
nothing to teach. Only religious objections, like yours. You *say it's
science, but all you talk about is God. Why is that?




A scientific error must be established as erroneous in the marketplace
of science, through the laborious task of competing observations and
experiments, through debate and discussion, even through arguments and
polemics.

How pedantic. Thank you, Asimov, for clearing up that one for me.

But it didn't clear it up for you, did it? You didn't hear a word of
it.


A religious heresy, on the other hand, can be summarily put down by
the full power pf the state and church, and I need not tell you of the
kinds of methods used in the past to enforce orthodoxy in the name of
an all-merciful-God.

Yep. Just like Dover, forcing orthodox belief in evolution down our
collective throats. Ram it down our throats, evolutionists!

Just like math.

Even
though the vast majority of Americans believe in ID!

Science is not a democratic process.

Keep force
feeding your bull*** belief down our throats, that everything "just
happened" with no God guiding the process!

All of school is force feeding. The US has a process called home
schooling, and also private schools. Feel free. Many of the younger
members of your congregation are already offering my daughter fries
with her burger, and she's only a sophomore.


Am I going too far? Am I exaggerating?

Yes, you are calling the kettle black. And I can't wait for the angry
evolutionist replies, which will only prove my point that they are
acting exactly like religious fanatics.

Except we keep offering verifiable evidence and testable models.

And we have no religious restrictions. And no church, nor holidays,
now vows, nor...

How is it a religion, again? Oh, right, Asimov discussed this. You
hope to have the cachet of science without doing the work. And if you
can persuade anybody that science is just religion, then you can
ignore the evidence, and claim that it's "just another belief".


Right now, the "scientific creationists" are moving Heaven and Earth
to get various state legislatures to pass laws requiring their
doctrines to be taught in classes whenever evolution is taught. They
are calling in the power of the state right now to decide, by
legislation, what is scientifically correct. And one state, Arkansas,
has already passed such legislation.

Yea, it's called "democracy." You see, in a democracy, you don't
usually get to ram your opinions down other people's throats. Unless
you are the ACLU in Dover, of course.

Well, sure you can. We in the US don't vote to decide what to call
India. We can't vote to change pi. Jupiter is still the largest planet
in the solar system, whatever we vote to call it. And all life
evolved, whether you like it or not.




Does it matter that in one rural state, or possibly a few more, a
handful of legislators, terrified of losing their jobs, are willing to
enforce ignorance upon the children of the land? It matters not only
in itself, but in the precedent it sets. Could not the same
legislators also insist that "scientific storkism" be taught as one
theory of childbirth, and that "scientific SantaClausism" be taught as
one theory of gift-giving? Why not? The level of science would be no
lower.

False analogies. Storkism is not based upon actual scientific
observations, such as IC structures.

So if two ID research teams were looking for IC structures, what would
be the test - how could two different teams looking at the same
organism recognize it? And how would it be falsified i principle?

And neither is SantaClausism
based upon any actual observations.

I beg your pardon? I've *seen Santa.




Or perhaps you think that schools ought, after all, to teach all
varieties of theories concerning matters in dispute? That this is only
being open-minded and fair? Don't you think then that all creation
myths ought to be taught, including those believed by hundreds of
millions of Hindus, Buddhists, and Animists?

Of course they should all be taught. In public schools that are
labelled as such. We should have public Buddhist, Hindu, Christian,
Atheist, and every other such school. That way nobody gets to force
their opinions down anybody else's throats.

Not paid with taxpayer dollars.




Do you think that "scientific creationists" are only after a fair
shake? That all they want is equal hearing?
Can you imagine any of these Bible-wavers consenting to teach
evolutionary doctrine in their churches in the name of and equal
hearing? -Never!

Nor should they. Since a church is not supported by taxes, it is not
even remotely similar. Nobody is forcing atheists to pay taxes for
churches. Quite the reverse for these horrible, failing public
schools, in which nobody seems able to read their diploma.

And yet you want your bullying, mindless religion taught to my kin
using tax dollars? I don't think so.


So where's the fairness?

When Christians no longer have to pay taxes for these public schools,
there will be fairness.


That is an argument which you have a non-zero chance of succeeding in
executing. It still won't change the history of life. My daughter
promises us that if she has to go to Sweden or Russia or Singapore to
do science, she'll make sure the grandkids speak English so her mom
and I can talk to them.



In the churches, they threaten the kids with eternal damnation in the
roasting fires of Hell, if they believe anything but what they are
there taught. In the homes, adults-already-brain-washed- reinforce it,
and so do almost all aspects of society.

I actually partially agree here. I don't believe hell is eternal, but
it certainly IS temporary. And I am afraid that Asimov is probably
there right now. Unless maybe God let him slide, since he wrote such
cool sci-fi stories.

Did you understand what he was saying? His stories were meaningless
unless you accepted the substrate of science.




The schools are the only place where evolution is as much as
mentioned; and even there, vigilante groups of "scientific
creationists" in many parts of the nation terrify the teachers into
mentioning evolution only in a whisper, or not at all.

What a crock.


I'm related to some of them.



What "scientific creationists" want is the destruction of modern
science, and if they win, destruction is what will follow. You cannot
have any rational geology or astronomy if the Earth is viewed as only
10,000 years old; you cannot have any rational biology if evolution is
squashed as heresy.

Ah. So evolution is the "right answer," eh? And anyway, the Bible
supports an old earth.

Most Creationists don't think so. I take some very small comfort in
knowing that if the American Taliban(1) ever does take over; you'll be
next on their list. Liberals and intellectuals first, heretics next.

<snip more of the same>

1. Dominionists. See
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm

Kermit


.