Date: Mon Nov 01 1993 18:05:42 To: All Subj: More Tribune Letters Attr: EVOLUTION

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Date: Mon Nov 01 1993 18:05:42 From: David Bloomberg To: All Subj: More Tribune Letters Attr: EVOLUTION ------------------------------- The Chicago Tribune appears to be allowing a back and forth to continue in the letters column. A couple months ago, I posted the Vista article, then the 2 pro-evolution letters, then 3 anti-evolution letters. Apparently there was another pro-evolution letter on 10/12, which I missed since I was temporarily not getting the paper. Today, there was another anti-evolution letter. Here it is, and my comments are in the next message: CHICAGO--Reinhard Plaut's letter of Oct. 12, in discussing whether evolution is based on observable processes, once again serves to perpetuate the ridiculous notion that concepts religious in nature can have no connection to science. Imagine if this sort of intellectual snobbery were applied to other disciplines. Would we pretend that Abraham's ancient city of Ur did not really exist simply because it is referenced in a "religious" book and as such must be kept away from the "true" disciplines of history and archaeology? Must we assume that the Bible's contributions to our knowledge of Israel, Egypt, Assyria and the Persian empire are all "religious" and therefore not connected to "real" history? Yet somehow, when the topic is evolution/creation, we are expected to believe evolution is a fact beyond question and any notion of special creation is purely religion and separate from science. We are asked to believe that thousands of scientists with Ph.D.s in geology, biology, physics and other fields who tell us that a vast body of evidence repudiates evolution and supports the concept of creation are really just biased and blind religionists who know nothing of logic, the rules of evidence or the scientific method. Evolutionists are pulling the wool oever the eyes of the public by defining science as purely naturalistic and excluding special creation based on their own narrow definition. In doing so, they ensure that all "scientific facts" must inevitably support evolution. You can't lose when you get to make all the rules. Dan Sullivan --- msgedsq 2.0.5 * Origin: The Temples of Syrinx! (1:2430/2112) Date: Mon Nov 01 1993 18:12:52 From: David Bloomberg To: All Subj: More Tribune Letters Attr: EVOLUTION ------------------------------- In a msg to All on , David Bloomberg of 1:2430/2112 writes: DB> Imagine if this sort of intellectual snobbery were applied to DB> other disciplines. Would we pretend that Abraham's ancient city of Ur DB> did not really exist simply because it is referenced in a "religious" DB> book and as such must be kept away from the "true" disciplines of DB> history and archaeology? Must we assume that the Bible's DB> contributions to our knowledge of Israel, Egypt, Assyria and the DB> Persian empire are all "religious" and therefore not connected to DB> "real" history? But would we simply accept these things with NO other evidence? I know of no historian who would. DB> Yet somehow, when the topic is evolution/creation, we are expected DB> to believe evolution is a fact beyond question and any notion of Untrue. We are expected to hold to the scientific method. DB> special creation is purely religion and separate from science. We are Unless he can find some scientific evidence, yes. DB> asked to believe that thousands of scientists with Ph.D.s in geology, DB> biology, physics and other fields who tell us that a vast body of DB> evidence repudiates evolution and supports the concept of creation are DB> really just biased and blind religionists who know nothing of logic, DB> the rules of evidence or the scientific method. What about the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS who oppose them and are not creation believers? Does he ignore these many in favor of the few? Also, it has been my personal experience that most creationists are NOT Ph.D.s in biology and geology and related fields, but are engineers and scientists in other fields away from those directly related to evolution. DB> Evolutionists are pulling the wool over the eyes of the public by DB> defining science as purely naturalistic and excluding special creation DB> based on their own narrow definition. In doing so, they ensure that DB> all "scientific facts" must inevitably support evolution. You can't DB> lose when you get to make all the rules. Interesting. First he says that the scientists he mentions above know the rules of evidence, then he implies that special creation doesn't follow those rules, thereore contradicting himself. --- msgedsq 2.0.5 * Origin: The Temples of Syrinx! (1:2430/2112)

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank