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.