From: utzoo!decvax!microsof!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!tektronix!teklabs!mikec Newsgroups: net.religion Title: response to dennisf Article-I.D.: teklabs.1924 Posted: Tue Apr 19 19:49:28 1983 Received: Sun Apr 24 07:48:35 1983 Ohboy, ohboy, ohboy - another creationist. Dennis Feucht seems to have come forth to defend his faith scientifically. I could ask for no more. This puts the current creationist count up to at least three (that I know of, there are probably several more). Perhaps Dennis Feucht, Larry Bickford and (personal mail) will get together (other creationists are, of course, invited as well) and show all of us the ERRORS in evolutionary theory and some of the EVIDENCE that supports creationism (I must confess my total ignorance in both of these topics). In fact, I would be tickled at least three shades beyond pink if they would also enlist the aid of their favorite creationist organizations! (Lots of Fun!) Instead of directly addressing any of the topics that are being discussed on the net, Dennis has chosen to bombard us with a list of books (at least some of which are written by fundamentalists) that we are apparently supposed to go buy or look up in a public library. Why, do you suppose, didn't he choose to impart some of the profound wisdom of these authors to us directly? Then, if he had made a good point, we could go look up his references to see if his point was valid. Of course, his claims couldn't be mere hyperbole; he just couldn't be trying to get us to waste time in the library, searching for evidence that refutes our claims, now could he? In science, the burden of proof is on the claimant. If someone claims that fairies exist, then that person must provide evidence to support his (or her) claims. I (and others) claim to have found evidence of Biblical contradictions, absurdities, etc. I have provided evidence to support my claims. If my claims are not valid, then the burden of proof is on the believers (or any- one else for that matter) to show why. We are patiently waiting. (from dennisf) : "... Donald MacKay, effectively deals with some common objections to Xn faith by uncovering their fallacies. One of them is "scientific reductionism", which has been demonstrated several times on this net." Donald Mackey is one of several evangelical Christians who are actively trying to save the Bible by criticizing science. Before going out and buying all of Mackey's books, I recommend that any interested individuals first check Mackey's credibility by read- ing the August 6, 1982 issue of Christianity Today (pages 18-19). The title of this enlightening article is "The Two Faiths Tied Together". Apparently, science is just another "faith" (religion) to Mackey. I found Mackey's answer to "Do you distinguish natural forces from supernatural forces?" particularly interesting. Also, note Mackey's answer to "What is the future of the relationship of science and Biblical faith?": "... If we do not learn the lessons from the confusion of the past, there is a real danger that we will set the clock back A HUNDRED YEARS. ... I hope, however, that in God's providence we can yet win through to the sort of harmony there was THREE CENTURIES AGO when modern science was founded in the days of the first Royal Society members." (emphasis mine). Besides the obvious contradiction, three centuries ago the church was persecuting heretics (anyone saying anything contradicting the Bible). There are other groaners in this interview as well. Mackey's current claim is that modern scientific techniques can not be used to evaluate the "truth" of the Bible. To properly "interpret" the meaning of the Bible, one must "think" like the Biblical authors. This "thinking", of course, renders all ancient myths and fables absolutely true (since the people in primitive times "thought" them to be true). Mackey is only interested in saving the Bible; saving any other myths is just a side effect. Also note that there is an interview with Robert Jastrow in the same issue of Christianity Today (pages 14-18). This interview is titled (appropriately enough) "A Scientists Caught Between Two Faiths." I found it even funnier than Mackey's interview. Jastrow has been promoting nonsense for some time now. For an example of his absurd(ly wild) statements about evolution see the Skeptical Inquirer "Science and Evolution in the Public Eye" by Laurie R. Godfrey (Volume IV No. 1 page 30). For some very good refutations of Jastrow's ignorant claims (by Responsible Scientists) see the Skeptical Inquirer "Science and the Mountain Peak" by Isaac Asimov (Volume V Number 2, page 42) and Free Inquiry Volume 2 number 2. (I will cover any of these topics in more detail upon request.) (from dennisf) : "Also, see Owen Gingerich's recent article in *Scientific American* on Galileo." Owen Gingerich is yet another evangelical Christian. He, like Dennis Feucht, belongs to the ASA (more about this group later). I definitely recommend that all interested parties read Owen's article in the August 1982 issue of Scientific American. Owen is certain that the church could not have made such a mistake. His claims, absurd as they might seem, are 1) Galileo committed "an elementary blunder of logic" 2) the church condemned Galileo's endorsement of the Copernican system for "potentially fallacious logic" which might cause "confusion in the popular mind" (and not heresy)! The church imprisoned Giordano Bruno for six years in their dungeons for, among other things, endorsing the Copernican system and claiming that "witches" were merely deranged old women and then finally burned him at the stake on February 17,1600 just thirty three years earlier than Galileo's trail. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine (the world's greatest theologian) convicted Bruno (and had him burned to death) and later tried Galileo for suspicion of heresy. De Dominis, Archbishop of Spalatro, died in the dungeons of the Inquisition for scientific heresies and his body and books were publically burned only eight years before Galileo's trial. Then Galileo was forced to recant on his knees after having been intimidated by the church (the standard path to truth). Galileo's recantation reads "...abjure, curse, and detest the error and the heresy of the movement of the earth." The church placed the works of Copernicus in the "Index Librorum Prohibitorum" (the Forbidden Index) and remained against the rotation of the earth until about 1835. As if this weren't bad enough, the Inquisition ordered the substitution of the word "notorious" in a scientific work that referred to Galileo as "renowned". The church forbade any epitaph to be placed on Galileo's tomb without their censorship for over 100 years. Like most true believers (that I know of) Owen totally fails to provide any evidence to prove his claims while providing considerable evidence that refutes them! Needless to say, Owen Gingerich has been besieged with letters. Gingerich's retractions appear in the March, 1983 issue of Scientific American. Here he claims to have "forgotten" some of the facts (against his claims) that were in one of his references. He seems to have changed his tactics slightly, since he is now claiming that Galileo was not "officially" condemned for heresy. Some people never learn. This is not the most absurd claim to come from the ASA. A far more bizarre claim can be found in the December 1981 issue (page 225). The author (Jerry Bergman) states : "... The resistance to the heliocentric position is often seen as emanating primarily from the Catholic Church for religious reasons. It is more accurate to say that the resistance was primarily from the academic community who used the church as a tool to oppress a belief they felt was incorrect and required a thorough re-evaluation of the secular view of the universe but only a minor change in the sacred view of the universe." Firstly, the church controlled the "secular" community and they also used Biblical verses as an argument against heliocentricity. Both the Catholic and the Protestant church leaders made several severe statements (based on the Bible) against heliocentricity. Secondly, the Bible explicitly states that the earth doesn't move and the earth was created before the sun and stars. This is, of course, totally at odds with modern science. How Amazing! I would never be so foolish as to claim that NO new evidence could ever be found to vindicate the Catholic (and Protestant) church in the Galileo affair; however, current evidence suggests that yet more whitewashing is forthcoming. If anyone would like to hear a more thorough refutation of Owen Gingerich's claims then contact Jeff Mayhew (tektronix!teklabs!jeffma) or me (tektronix!teklabs!mikec). (from dennisf) : "... the *Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation* is a good source of articles on science/Christianity. The ASA is an organization of (evangelical) Xns interested in the relationship of science and Xn faith." There are several fundamentalist Christian organizations that CLAIM to be scientific. Is the ASA just another fundamentalist Christian pseudo-scientific organization? I will now present the facts about this group and let the reader decide if the ASA is a scientific or religious (or both or neither) organization. The American Scientific Affiliation (abbr. ASA) was founded in 1941 by a handful of Missouri Synod Lutherans (fundamentalists). They had become alarmed over the possible acceptance of evolution over the Biblical creation myths given in Genesis. Their general goal was to develop "scientific" arguments against evolutionary theory. Note that Science welcomes (constructive) criticism and is even based on skepticism (evidence is absolutely necessary). However, the evidence supporting evolution was so massive that "theistic evolutionists" (a combination of special creation and evolution) began to dominate the group. This, of course, caused considerable friction with other members of the group who wanted to strictly oppose evolutionism. In 1963, several of the members left the ASA to form "The Creation Research Society" (one of the largest pseudo-scientific fundamentalist organizations). These "scientific creationists" generally interpret the Genesis myths in the King James Version of the Bible literally and try to find "scientific" evidence to support their religious beliefs. The majority of these "scientific creationists" are college-educated fundamentalist Christians with strong commitments to both science (primarily technology and engineering since the hard sciences are simply too much for their belief systems to handle) and a literal interpretation of the Bible. Like most fundamentalist Christian organizations, the ASA requires members to sign a statement of belief (NO scientific organization requires such a statement). I have listed the entire uncensored (unedited) ASA pledge below. "Members of both organizations endorse the following statement of faith: (1) The Holy Scriptures are the inspired Word of God, the only unerring guide of faith and conduct. (2) Jesus Christ is the Son of God and through His Atonement is the one and only Mediator between God and man. (3) God is the Creator of the physical universe. Certain laws are discernible in the manner in which God upholds the universe. The scientific approach is capable of giving reliable information about the natural world" In short, to be a member of the ASA, you MUST be a believer and non-believers are NOT allowed. The ASA has been engaged in trying to reconcile modern science with the Bible for a number of years. (from dennisf) : "In spite of the "objectivity" of heavy sarcasm, recent criticisms of specific Bible texts have often displayed a common fallacy which has nothing to do with the plausibility of biblical faith in itself." I am basically lethargic (like a troll) and aside from eating live rats now and then, I mostly sleep under bridges. If someone believes in fairies (based on faith), that is fine with me. That is their personal right, and I would NEVER even think of taking that right away from them. However, from time to time some real Bozo comes along and tries to defend his or her faith by bending modern science into whatever shape is necessary to conform to their silly beliefs. When that occurs, I immediately WAKE from my stupor, BITE my restraining chains completely in two, OBLITERATE the door to my cage (in hasty exit), WRENCH the keyboard from the nearest unfortunate (and cringing) programmer and start STAMPING on the keys furiously with both feet. The only reason that people around here tolerate me is because I'm housebroken (this puts me over one notch above our ex-president's brother). While perhaps stating the obvious, I must say that I try to weight my caustic comments in proportion to the CERTAINTY with which absurd claims are made by the (aforementioned) Bozo(s). Several people have submitted (erroneous) articles to the net without resorting to CERTAINTY, and I have responded without sarcasm. If ANYONE feels that I have wronged them, then please write me. If I find the (necessary) evidence compelling, I will publicly apologize and mend my ways (sigh). Those who remain CERTAIN should prepare for HARD TIMES. While Dennis is rather good at making an impassioned plea for "objectivity", he is CERTAIN that (1) the Bible is the word of God and (2) Jesus is the Son of God and (3) God made the universe (see the ASA pledge above). How "objective" can you get? By the way, Dennis, where IS Noah's ark and how old IS the earth? Also, what scientific evidence supports the creation of the earth BEFORE the sun, moon and stars and where IS the evidence showing that the earth once stopped (and even reversed!) its rotation? (from dennisf) : "Finally, it seems strange that out-spoken atheists would turn to *theologians* for their support - until it is discover- ed that these theologians (and some non-Bible-scholars, like Asimov, who find themselves experts in biblical studies anyway) are also of an atheistic orientation!" Asimov has never claimed to be an expert in Biblical studies. >From Asimov's Guide to the Bible, page 9 (emphasis in original): "I cannot pretend that in writing this book I am making any significant ORIGINAL contribution to Biblical scholarship; indeed, I am not competent to do so. All that I will have to say will consist of material well known to students of ancient history." I find it very interesting that fundamentalists never want to hear any criticism from non-believers. Science invites skeptics. Dennis seems to be saying that if anyone wants to find out about flying saucers then they should ask believers and never skeptics. Here's what an early church father had to say about evangelists: "By the command of the emperor Anastasius, the holy gospels, as having been written by idiot evangelists, are (now) censured and corrected." (506 C.E.) Victor, Bishop of Tunis (Taken from Cave's Historia Literaria Volume 1 page 414.) REFERENCES : The Crime of Galileo by Giorgio de Santillana 1955 Chicago Galileo, Science, and the Church by Father Jerome J. Langford 1966 Michigan (Ann Arbor Paperback) Galileo at Work His Scientific Biography by Stillman Drake 1978 Chicago The Flood of Antievolutionism Where is the science in "scien- tific creationism"? by Laurie R. Godfrey Natural History June 1981 pages 4-10 (about the ASA and other fundamentalists) Fundamentals by Peter Steinhart Audubon September 1981 pages 5-14 (about the ASA and other fundamentalists) The Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 1982 Evangelical Press Association (contains the ASA pledge) Scientific American The Galileo Affair by Owen Gingerich August 1982 pages 132-143 Scientific American Letters (column) March 1983 page 11 (contains Gingerich's apologetics : pun intended) Asimov's Guide to the Bible by Isaac Asimov 1981 Avenel Asimov is that thoroughly rotten atheist who has written more science than all of the creationist organizations put together. A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom By Andrew Dickson White 1896 (Dover 1960) Vol. 1 pages 114-170 Fundamentalists shake with terror at the mere mention of White. Evangelists try to make up for their ignorance with enthusiasm. Micheal D. Cranford Tektronix Teklabs