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