Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Honesty Message-ID: <4565@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 10-Jan-85 09:15:45 EST Article-I.D.: cbscc.4565 Posted: Thu Jan 10 09:15:45 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 12-Jan-85 01:34:27 EST References: <968@utastro.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 44 Bill Jefferys has expounded well on the honesty that ought to characterize science. That standard of honesty ought to be striven for by creationists as well as evolutionists. I think, however, that it is a bit unfair to characterise creationists exclusively as having grave problems in this area. The problem of dishonesty, fraud and deceit is at a very unacceptable level in all of science--as William Broad and Nicholas Wade have pointed out in their recent book "Betrayers of the Truth". Creationist err and dishonesty is trumpeted for all the world to see by evolutionists whose aspiration to honesty and objectivity often seems to be matched by a basic disdain for a contradicting cosmology with differing implications. I think there are many evolutionists who just don't want creationism to be seen as having the least degree of plausibility and I think the reasons often go to a deeper, personal level than just a concern for scientific integrity in itself. As Broad and Wade have shown, the errs of *accepted* science easily go unnoticed for long periods of time. The point I want to make here is that the careful scrutiny applied to creationist claims by scientists does not internally characterize science as a whole. I believe creationism is treated with special scrutiny because of an inherent philosophical bias against it. Such extravigant effort seems a bit out of place in the relatively inconsequential area of origins, when falsification of data in, say, cancer research can cost many lives with treatments that don't work. Worse than the deceit itself is the fact the the review system is inadaquate and allows such fraud to go undetected for long periods of time and when it is found, knowledge of it is actively suppressed to avoid betraying the trust of the public (yes, such considerations do enter in). It is fine to point out the errors of creationism. Creationists should be all the better for it. But by doing so the opponents of creationism should not give the impression that their own back yard is clean. By the way... I am Paul Dubuc. Please don't attribute these statments to Paul Dubois. He's got enough to handle already. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd