Date: Wed Sep 15 1993 18:36:10 To: All Subj: Response Letter in Tribune Attr: EVO

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

Skeptic Tank!

Date: Wed Sep 15 1993 18:36:10 From: David Bloomberg To: All Subj: Response Letter in Tribune Attr: EVOLUTION ------------------------------- So nobody can accuse me of bias, here is the letter printed by the Chicago Tribune on 9/13, apparently in response to the earlier two letters about the Vista situation. (My comments in next message.) ======================================================================= GENEVA--Science once believed that the universe revolved around the Earth, that certain mathematical problems were unsolvable, the atom was the end of matter, and the neutron bomb would end all wars. Obviously science is constantly discovering new facts about life and is continuously catching up with reality. Sounds like a pretty shaky belief system to me. Those who support an anti-creationist teaching foundation in schools are afraid of "religion" being taught as a belief system. Which way seems more reasonable to you? How life begins (even on a planetary scale) is still scientifically not provable. Therefore to present to our children the "option" that the belief, continuously held throughout the centuries, one that countless people have given their lives for, that life is created, is valid. To exclude such options in education is prejudicial, slanting by omission, self-righteous and borders on book burning--sins usually attributed to those the anti-creationists are trying to undermine. Roy H. Mulattieri --- msgedsq 2.0.5 * Origin: The Temples of Syrinx! (1:2430/2112) Date: Wed Sep 15 1993 18:40:26 From: David Bloomberg To: All Subj: Response Letter in Tribune--Comments Attr: EVOLUTION ------------------------------- In a msg to All on , David Bloomberg of 1:2430/2112 writes: DB> GENEVA--Science once believed that the universe revolved around the DB> Earth, that certain mathematical problems were unsolvable, the atom DB> was the end of matter, and the neutron bomb would end all wars. DB> Obviously science is constantly discovering new facts about life and So far, so good. DB> Sounds like a pretty shaky belief system to me. Ah, the beginning of the problem. Another person who doesn't realize that there is a difference between science and religion. DB> Those who support an anti-creationist teaching foundation in DB> schools are afraid of "religion" being taught as a belief system. No, we don't want religion taught in the public schools as if it were science. DB> How life begins (even on a planetary scale) is still scientifically DB> not provable. And the theory of evolution says nothing about the BEGINNING of life. DB> Therefore to present to our children the "option" that the belief, DB> continuously held throughout the centuries, one that countless people have DB> given their lives for, that life is created, is valid. As Roy points out at the beginning of his letter, people held the belief that the universe revolved around the Earth, etc. for many years. Science marches on. The same way we have realized that the Earth is NOT the center of the universe, we have also realized that creationism is NOT a valid scientific theory. Roy seems to be contradicting himself quite well here, saying that science has advanced in some areas, but ignoring scientific advances in the particular area of evolution. As for giving your life for a belief -- does that automatically make the belief the CORRECT one? DB> To exclude such options in education is prejudicial, slanting by omission, DB> self-righteous and borders on book burning Methinks Roy has gone off the deep end here. --- msgedsq 2.0.5 * Origin: The Temples of Syrinx! (1:2430/2112) Date: Tue Sep 21 1993 11:23:06 From: David Bloomberg To: All Subj: Another Tribune Letter Attr: sent EVOLUTION ------------------------------- The Chicago Tribune printed another letter in response to the Vista creationism article of almost a month ago. This one is pro-creationism, and looks like it was written by somebody who knows the tenets of "formal" creationism, as opposed to the previous letter, which looked like it was just written by some guy parroting something he might have heard somewhere. Here is the letter, with the next message containing some comments by me. ============================================================================= CICERO--In "Creationism gets toehold in class" (Aug. 25), as usual, creation is presented as religion, and evolution as science. Actually, just the opposite is true since evolutionism is based on ideas that have never been observed. Spontaneous generation, e.g., the idea that dead matter can transform itself into a living organism, is absolutely essential to evolutionism. However, this process has never been observed despite numerous attempts in the laboratory to make it happen. Life always comes from life. Evolutionism is also based on the idea that an organism can change into another organism of major difference over eons of time (fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, etc.). However, such changes have never been observed, and neither does the fossil record provide transitional forms to support the idea. Even if creation were more religious than evolutionism, how could it be unconstitutional to teach it in public schools? If this were the case then it would also be unconstitutional to discuss the Declaration of Independence since it has numerous references to our Creator. According to this document, our Creator is the very source of our rights. Our founding fathers would turn in their graves if they saw the efforts being made to eliminate Him from our nation. David Laughlin =========== --- msgedsq 2.0.5 * Origin: The Temples of Syrinx! (1:2430/2112) Date: Tue Sep 21 1993 11:28:48 From: David Bloomberg To: All Subj: Another Tribune Letter -- Comments Attr: sent EVOLUTION ------------------------------- In a msg to All on , David Bloomberg of 1:2430/2112 writes: DB> CICERO--In "Creationism gets toehold in class" (Aug. 25), as usual, DB> creation is presented as religion, and evolution as science. Yes, and? DB> Actually, just the opposite is true since evolutionism is based on DB> ideas that have never been observed. So we should expect the rest of this letter to talk about how evidence for creationism HAS been observed. I mean, his claim is that creation is science, so... DB> Spontaneous generation, e.g., the idea that dead matter can DB> transform itself into a living organism, is absolutely essential to DB> evolutionism. Actually, it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. That theory doesn't depend at all upon where the first life came from, but concerns itself with what happened AFTER that. DB> Evolutionism is also based on the idea that an organism can change DB> into another organism of major difference over eons of time (fish to DB> amphibian, amphibian to reptile, etc.). However, such changes have DB> never been observed, Let's see here. He says it takes place over EONS, but complains that it hasn't been observed. Hmmmm.... DB> and neither does the fossil record provide transitional forms to support DB> the idea. Simply untrue. DB> Even if creation were more religious than evolutionism, how could DB> it be unconstitutional to teach it in public schools? Ask the Supreme Court. DB> If this were the case then it would also be unconstitutional to discuss DB> the Declaration of Independence since it has numerous references to our DB> Creator. Does the Declaration claim to be science? ============================================================ If echo participants would like to reply to this letter, you can write to: Voice of the People Chicago Tribune 435 N. Michigan Ave. Chicago, IL 60611 I responded to the original article, and they are used to hearing from me, so new voices might have a better chance of getting published. --- msgedsq 2.0.5 * Origin: The Temples of Syrinx! (1:2430/2112)

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank