Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site uicsl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!rmooney
From: rmooney@uicsl.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: misc. creationist topics
Message-ID: <27700003@uicsl.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 22-Sep-84 13:07:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uicsl.27700003
Posted: Sat Sep 22 13:07:00 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 19:21:45 EDT
References: <32500002@uiucdcsb.UUCP>
Lines: 59
Nf-ID: #R:uiucdcsb:32500002:uicsl:27700003:000:3332
Nf-From: uicsl!rmooney    Sep 22 12:07:00 1984

>     Turning to others, we have Ray Mooney cheering on one sideline that evolu-
>tion is so good because we can pigeonhole plants/animals into nice species ca-
>tegories.  On the other sideline we have Phil Polli cheering that evolution is
>so good because it's "very hard" to do this.  Hmmmmmm.
 
Please! let's avoid setting up straw men, A. Ray.  I never said or even
alluded that the ease or difficulty  of classifying organisms into
species was evidence for or against evolution; however, I happen to agree
with Phil's arguement. My point was simply that the *definition* and examples
for the concept of species far outweighs that of "kind", adding the fact that
even species is not a sharply defined category. The only attempt at answering
the request for a definition of "kind" that I remember was Paul Dubois' which
was shown to be circular by Dick Dunn. I maintain that the concept of "kind"
is much weaker that that of species and if you disagree please post your
definition and classification of all organisms into "kinds" using evidence
from morphology, genetics, etc.

>    Ray Mooney also writes:
>>The current taxonomy has been in development since Linnaeus ...
>who, by the way, was a creationist and was trying to begin a delineation of the
>original created kinds.  Evolutionists simply "borrowed" his work

I am tired of hearing that many pre-Darwinian scientists (yes A. Ray I know
about Bacon,Pasteur...)  were "creationists."  *So what?*  Kepler believed
in astrology, does this give it credibility?  I fail to see how the
ignorance of the past has *anything* to do with the present.

>>creationists...are almost always in areas not directly related to the evolu-
>>tion-creationism debate.
>A false statement.

I maintain the validity of this statement in general.  Gish I believe is
an engineer, and there are other examples, of course.

> But I do wish to infer that given the *premise*
>that the bottom line of ALL is physics, there are no unalienable rights.  Why
>should I grant "rights" to some chemical reaction, even if its complexity
>equals that of my own?  Who cares about society as a whole and why on earth
>should I?  Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.  And why not?  It is a
>perfectly logical position, and one not to be criticized, given the stated
>premise.  Indeed, how can one call anything in physics "good" or "evil"? 

Supporters of creationism and prayer in schools seem to insist on the
inseperability of morality and religion.  Perhaps they should read some
literature on Humanism.  Of course its a "logical position," so is the
position of adding moral postulates to an atheistic belief system, the
important thing is not to confuse morality with both religion and science
as creationists insist on doing.  Science is neutral with respect to morality.
Certainly religion cannot make an exlusive claim to the idea of human equality
In fact religion has certainly been at least as frequently used to support
descrimination as science.  Were most of the people who rationalized the
owning of slaves athiests or Christians?  If it is relevant that Linneaus
was a creationist, perhaps it is relevant that Hitler was (perhaps I 
could use "claimed to be") a Christian.

       Ray Mooney
       ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!rmooney
       University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign