To : Arthur Biele Subj: All of this, 'eh? My, my, my, Art. Either you have an inordinate a
From: Marty Leipzig 4 Aug 94 04:17
To : Arthur Biele
Subj: All of this, 'eh?
My, my, my, Art. Either you have an inordinate amount of free
time or a direct pipeline to the ICR. Apparently both.
25 whole posts, all directed to me. I suppose that I should be
I really don't know if you fundy creationists think that this is
the first time that we've seen all this creation nonsense
before. You gleefully (and obstreperously) post quote after
quote (some looking suspiciously out-of-context), time worn
accusation after banal allegation of illogic, non sequiturs and
just plain, flat out solecisms. I have neither the time nor
desire to dismember your rather lengthy posts point for point,
but will rather demonstrate their overall general absurdity
Your protestations notwithstanding, evolution does NOT address
the question of the origin of life on this planet; no more than
your squalid statistics. Rant, wail and rave all you want,
Arthur, but this strawman you've built is of the highest fiber.
Your insistence to the opposite matters not one whit the
definition of biological evolution. Science is, of course,
based upon definition.
It is not only capricious, but malicious, to redefine something
to fit your own prejudices, Art. It's also dishonest.
Further, why do you think that biopoesis (I know you just hate
that term, hence my fondness for it) is also described as
PREevolutionary protobiogenesis? Definition, Art. The basis of
science. Also, a quality sorely absent from your posts.
Secondly, your railing about transitionals. Sad, indeed. I could
present you with a thousand more documented examples of
transitional animals, and these still would not be transitional
enough for you. It is truly amazing that you cannot comprehend
the fact that taxonomy is a human construct which is applied to
a natural biological continuum. By definition, every extinct or
extant organism is transitional (except for clones, but we were
discussing natural selection). Envision a continuum of color
from carmine to electric yellow. Somewhere we draw the
ARBITRARY line that separates the "yellow clan" from the "red
clan". Is it natural? No. Is it absolute? No. Is it fixed? No.
The same applies to the fossil record and the whole of organic
life. Really, Art, it's not that tough to comprehend.
Moving forward, your apparent exultation at posting scientists
apparently dissenting viewpoints is so obvious. You've aptly
demonstrated that we scientists are indeed guilty. Guilty as
charged. Guilty of doing science. You see, Art, unlike your
rigid and dogmatic approach to apparently everything (you are
stumping for God, aren't you? Strange that you didn't address my
imputations to that effect in my package of posts to you),
science cannot afford that "luxury". Science is fluid,
expanding, self-correcting and, dare say I, evolving body of
knowledge; subject to critical analysis, review, dissent, re-
review, analysis and above all, reinterpretation as more data
becomes available. Your quaint and curious mythology would just
shrivel to dust under such scrutiny. Perhaps that's why there
are so many "mysteries of faith". Keep 'em, science neither
requires nor desires them.
Another point that you seem to be incapable of grasping is the
fact that macroevolution is defined as simply microevolution
over the span of geological time. Why this should be such a
difficult concept for you to grasp is beyond cognition.
Oh, and a heartfelt thanks for finally defining the misbegotten
term "kind" (I've kept that post of yours, it's a beaut). So,
academician Biele, "kind" = "family"? Simply amazing. After all
these years, even your best gurus at the ICR could not define
the term, and yet right here, in our little forum, you've
grabbed the bull by the short and curlies and given it a real
"meaning". Meaning, of course, that this will haunt you.
As for your failed attempt to prove creation by disproving
evolution, you should realize that that is not the course of
neither science nor logic. First, this is not a binary universe.
There are always more than two possibilites. Sorry, Art, but
that's the way the cosmos crumbles. Secondly, instead of trying
to prove a negative (divine creation) by falsifying evolution;
why not instead provide positive physical evidence for this
creation? It's a fool's errand to be sure, but I think you're
just the right individual for that task.
Finally, I do so wish more laymen would have your courage to
speak their minds and tell us ignorant old scientists just how
science is SUPPOSED to be done; instead of our pursuing logic,
rigorous analysis and the scientific method. All we would have
to do is consult an ancient book of myth.
Really, now Art. What is your motive behind all this subterfuge?
You really don't care a fig about evolution, biopoesis (there's
that word again...) or any natural science, now do you? You're
just miffed that science has made your God superfluous and
removed "the enlightened" from the belly-button of the universe.
It's really rather covert (and dishonest) to say otherwise, Art.
If you're so intent on proselytizing, why not just come out and
do so, instead of building this elaborate, albeit effete,
This is a time consuming, and much like trying to teach an iguana to
sing, a futile conversation. I have the backing of the facts and
methodology of science and you the dogma of your book. It is obvious
that you are impervious to logic, so I can see no further use continuing
this conversation. If you ever drop the facade and try legitimate
questions instead of couching everything to reflect back on your
ancient book of myths, perhaps then we could make some progress.
This echo is too busy and you're too windy for me to want to
bother. If you keep posting that ICR drek, I'll refute it
publically, but as far as I am concerned, this dialogue has just
become a monologue.
... Evolution is both fact and theory. Creationism is neither.
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank