Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!padraig
From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Maybe it was Pinking Shears
Message-ID: <5@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 27-Mar-85 13:04:59 EST
Article-I.D.: utastro.5
Posted: Wed Mar 27 13:04:59 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 30-Mar-85 01:40:59 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 46




The informative story about the censorship performed by the evolutionist
should be known to all. However, it hardly constitutes conclusive evidence
that there is a coherent effort to supress creationist ideas. This point
is clearly illustrated by the fact that three of the censor's collegues
objected strongly to the act. The only valid conclusion is that some
people let their biases get the better of them occasionally.

> > It is not because they do not like the science; it is because they want
> > to avoid the inevitable conclusion. Even in the last century, evolution
> > was gaining acceptance, not because of scientific validity, but because
> > "it finally freed us from accountability [to a Creator]." They realize
> > full well that the only real alternative to evolution is creation, and
> > thus they even suppress evidence which would make evolution look like
> > Swiss Cheese. (Like when an Ivy League professor scissored out Ron
> > Brady's article from the library copy of December 1979 _Systematic
> > Zoology_ so students wouldn't read it.)

Being freed from accountability to a creator is a most interesting way
of describing the popularity of evolution in the last century. 
This kind of description could be applied to all scientific results
that go at least part of the way towards explaining that which
was previously unexplainable e.g. why does the sun not fall from the sky?
how can something heavier than air fly? etc. It is the goal of science
to explain phenomena and in doing so make them more predictable and
hence remove some of their apparent randomness and uncertainty (in the absence
of a deity of course :-)). 

If one bases their beliefs on the existence of observed, but currently
unexplained phenomena, (i.e. the world is so complex/orderly that there must
be some guiding being/deity behind it all), then science
is always going to appear as an attack on the beliefs,
or as an attempt to be freed from accountability,
since any attempt to explain and understand things is going to remove
them from the domain of divine providence, and reduce the basis of belief
accordingly.

Finally, it is not at all clear that the only real alternative to evolution
is creationism. This assumes that creationism is a scientific theory of
comparable merit to begin with. It furthermore assumes, if this
was the case, that one of the two theories must be correct. There may
both be wrong compared to some undiscovered one.

Padraig Houlahan.