Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: The White Lab Coat Has a Stain on It.
Message-ID: <586@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Dec-84 15:10:08 EST
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.586
Posted: Wed Dec 19 15:10:08 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 21-Dec-84 02:30:48 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center
Lines: 46

Discussing human/chimpanzee crosses...

> [Greg Kuperberg]
> No one would dare try the experiment.

Perhaps.  But not because no one would like to...

> [Mike Huybensz]
> I'd say that it would be worth an attempt.  I would not be surprised if it was
> successful.  (Please, if we're going to discuss ethics of this sort of thing,
> move it to net.religion or net.philosophy.)  It really would stick in the
> craw of creationists if they had to admit that humans and apes were
> "of a kind".

(i)	Would it?  Why?
(ii)	Would your motivation for such an attempt be simply to irritate a
	group of individuals with whom you disagree?  Scientific.

>               But of course, they'd squirm away with some new BS claim
> equally unsupported by the facts and the Bible.

(i)	Allow me to squirm in advance.  Demonstrating that something
	is possible in the laboratory does not show that it happens,
	or, more the the point, happened, in nature.  Clearly it
	doesn't now (that we know about) or we wouldn't even be
	discussing whether such a thing is possible or not.

	A similar example might run something like this.  Suppose
	one were able to synthesize life in the laboratory, without
	using pre-fab biological material (e.g., starting with just
	the raw chemicals, build the amino acids, nucleotides, etc.,
	and end up with a living cell).  You have just created life.
	Does this constitute scientific evidence for creation?  I
	presume that it does not.

(ii)	If creationists are said to be unscientific because their
	contentions are unsupported by the facts, why are they said
	to be Biblical (and criticized *on that basis*) if their
	contentions are unsupported by the Bible?  One cannot say,
	in reply, "well, they *claim* to be Biblical".  The full
	text of the proper reply is "they *claim* to be scientific."

-- 
Paul DuBois		{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois

"I'b dot a dubby!  I do I'b dot!"