Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uvacs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!dsr
From: dsr@uvacs.UUCP (Dana S. Richards)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: the real case against Falwell et al
Message-ID: <2237@uvacs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 10:16:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: uvacs.2237
Posted: Tue Jul  9 10:16:37 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 14:14:39 EDT
References: <356@imsvax.UUCP>
Organization: U.Va. CS dept.  Charlottesville, VA
Lines: 40

[Evolution is best explained..]
> in  Immanual  Velikovsky's  book  "Earth  in Upheaval",
> still  available  from  DoubleDay.
 ... 
>      Logically, belief in such a thing  should mark the
> believer as  an idiot and yet, such is the power of the
> "scientific"  establishment  in   this   country,  that
> they've managed  to mark  everybody who doesn't believe
> in this possibility as  idiots and  most people believe
> them.   In  particular,  they've temporarily managed to
> brand the one man, Velikovsky,  who  ever  did  come up
> with some  of the  right answers regarding our origins,
> as a pseudo-scientist.  It's a funny world.
> 
...
> being a Christian.  My message to all of you scientists
> out there is this:  don't try to attack Christianity on
> scientific  or  historical  grounds;    you are on much
> shakier scientific and historical ground than you would
> like to  imagine.  And if you haven't read Velikovsky's
> books and  David  Talbott's  "The  Saturn  Myth", you'd
> better.  Uniformitarianism is dead.  The alternative to
 
Is there (should there be) a net.pseudoscience where it would be
appropriate to respond to these comments?  There are many
serious articles and books that debunk V, though it is hard
to understand why so much energy has been expended considering
the unsoundness of the claims.  There are those that think
V has been treated unfairly (see a new book reviewed by Martin
Gardner in the new Skeptical Inquirer) but I feel his views
have been treated with incredible serious (all things considered).
It is a credit that scientists bother to refute pseudoscientists
when it is clear that there views are becoming persuasive.
As a rule they would prefer to not debunk; the return on the time
invested is minimal.
Similar comments pertain to rebuttals on this newsgroup.  Obviously
the majority of the creationist liteature/tactics are indistinguishable
from the pseudoscientist's.  However there is the added emotional
dimension that makes this newsgroup different.  And it is always
good to hear thoughtful critiques of Science.