Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site oddjob.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!ihnp4!oddjob!matt
From: matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: The game continues ...
Message-ID: <906@oddjob.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 11-Aug-85 22:56:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: oddjob.906
Posted: Sun Aug 11 22:56:41 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 14-Aug-85 22:34:53 EDT
References: <368@scgvaxd.UUCP> <890@oddjob.UUCP> <376@scgvaxd.UUCP> <373@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford)
Organization: U. Chicago, Astronomy & Astrophysics
Lines: 121

OK, the gauntlet was thrown down and seems to have been accepted.
Here's the lead quote to set the tone.  In an unrelated(?) discussion
a few people have been suggesting that each other are "scared" or
"frightened" of various things.  Our hero contributes the following
rebuttal:

> No! I am not scared in the least. That is why I do not stoop to such
> depths as ..., ..., and the latest addition to the insult
> club, Matt Crawford. I try to discuss the issues rather than attack
> the person. This is because I am confident about what I believe. And,
> if I am wrong than I have nothing to lose.

So Dan is confident about what he believes.  Is it then any wonder
that evidence and logic will not sway him?  The remainder of the
article (<368@scgvaxd.UUCP>) from which the above is excerpted
contained *NO* discussion of any issues.  It did contain some attacks
on persons.  By the way, who should be taken more seriously:  a
scientist who stakes a career on careful work, or someone who has
"nothing to lose" by being wrong?  [N.B.:  I admit this is just
rhetoric, so don't bother to point out to me that the previous
sentence proves nothing!]

The next example is from Dan's reply to my previous (and well-received!
Keep those cards and letters coming) foray into this newsgroup.  I
wrote:

>>The urge to form parodies is irresistable.  How about: "My model
>>of the United States includes the fact that Ronald Reagan is the
>>president.  Therefore I have predicted that Ronald Reagan is the
>>president."

And Dan replied (in <376@scgvaxd.UUCP>):

> This is utter nonsense! This in no way can be compared to a scientific
> model of origins. A more reasonable comparison would be: :My model of
> the United States system of government includes a Congress  according
> to a study of the constitution. Now we look at the United States and see
> that there is in fact a functioning Congress."

Now how many of you readers can see a meaningful difference between
my parody and Dan's "more reasonable comparison"?  I can't.  If anyone
can convince me that there is an important difference then I will
type either "The Origin of Species" or "Genesis" into my computer
and post it to net.origins.  (Whoever finds the difference can choose).

Moving right along, I quoted an older sentence:
>>>>>  I can just as easily say that I believe in creation because species
>>>>>  seem to have a common design.

and I gave this comment about it:
>>Let's suppose it were a valid argument.  In that case stars must
>>have been created by god because they are all round in shape, and
>>that watches are not created because different ones work on such
>>different principles.

which met with this objection:
>More nonsense! First of all I said species have a common design! Not
>lifeless objects.

Very well, my argument was invalid *IF* Dan's position is that
species are created but stars are not.  I assumed that creation
was sort of an all-or-nothing proposition, or at least that if
the later stages of the work (creation of life) were done `by hand'
then the earlier stages (formation of elements and so on) must
have been also.  Some people, including some scientists, will
admit the possibility that the universe was created by divine act
and has since been running according to physical laws.  Dan's
refutation of my reductio-ad-absurdam above requires the opposite
viewpoint - that the universe was chugging merrily along on its
own when some cosmic joker created a bunch of species on one of
the mudballs.  This allows stars not to be created while life is.

Next, I apologize in advance for the length of the next quote,
but it's just too perfect to pass up.  Even numbers of '>'s
mark my words, odd numbers mark Dan's.
>>Here's another choice tidbit which I found amusing.
>>> Wrong! My conclusion was this: Since there is nothing in the present
>>> structure of natural law that can account for its own origin, the Universe
>>> could not have created itself. Therefore, it must have had a supernatural
>>> origin.
>>Now Dan might mean one of two things by this, depending on how you
>>interpret his phrase "present structure of natural law".  He could
>>be saying that because we do not yet know a scientific cause for
>>the the existence of the universe, there cannot be a scientific
>>cause.  Or he could mean that he knows somehow that the laws of
>>nature forbid the spontaneous origination of a universe.  Either
>>way, he's wrong.  Dare I go into the reasons?  If I don't I will

> Or, I could be saying that since we DO NOT KNOW of any way NOTHING
> could have become SOMETHING through NATURAL PROCESSES, it is at least
> AS REASONABLE to conclude that "supernatural processes were the
> cause of origin" as it is to conclude that "we will someday discover
> the natural cause of origin"!!

THAT is definitely NOT what you SAID, although it is MORE REASONABLE
than what you DID SAY.

One parting wisecrack:
> We don't know what a creator "would" do, but we do know what a creator
> "did" do. Thus creationism is based on observation of the creation.

Damn!  I must have slept through it!  I didn't observe any creation
at all!

Taking my tongue out of my cheek momentarily, let me ask some questions.
None of us are paleontologists or theologians, are we?  So what we
are doing here is arguing about our opinions on a subject to which
we have given a greater or a lesser degree of casual study, right?
(Yes, I can see that some seem to have amassed large reading lists,
so let's not argue about the word "casual", OK?)  Do any of us really
hope to convince others of the correctness of our opinions?  Are
there some silent readers who are forming their opinions on the
subject of creationism v. evolution on the basis of what they read
here?  I would like to see some contributions from them.

I compliment this newgroup for a lack of spelling flames, and
for enthusiasm.  If anyone wants to move the discussion from
the biological to the physical, I'll see them in net.hell first!-)
_____________________________________________________
Matt		University	crawford@anl-mcs.arpa
Crawford	of Chicago	ihnp4!oddjob!matt