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!"