Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd
From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Keebler Chronicles (6 of 7)
Message-ID: <554@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Apr-85 13:22:08 EST
Article-I.D.: cadovax.554
Posted: Tue Apr 23 13:22:08 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Apr-85 01:10:03 EST
References: <940@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA
Lines: 62

[.................]
>>>> { from: Jeff Sonntag }
>>>> Paul Dubois, writing on the (mistaken) idea that when a new specie 
>>>> evolves, all members of the parent specie must die out:
>
>> Indeed, quite a GROSS ERROR.
>
>Yep.  It comes from the Principle of Competitive Exclusion.  Your side
>thought it up.  Sorry.
>
>>> I was not concerned to demonstrate the validity or invalidity of the
>>> idea that when species evolve the parent species must die.  I was
>>> concerned to demonstrate that the idea did not originate with
>>> creationists, so it is an evolutionist FALLACY to imply that it did.
>
>What I'm suggesting (correctly) is that it's very strange for
>evolutionists to toss at creationists an argument against a concept
>that evolutionists made up!  It really doesn't make sense.  The concept
>was formulated, vaguely, by Darwin himself, in _The Origin_.  It is
>given more explicit formulation as the Competitive Exclusion Principle
>by, e.g., Garrett Hardin (in _Nature and Man's Fate_, Rinehart, New
>York, 1959, pp viii, 83-85, 262, 308, 339).
>
You must remember, that evolution is itself an evolving science.  There are
scores of evolutionary theories that have ALREADY been falsified, or are no
longer considered valid or 'up to date'.  This is what science is all about.
Darwin is BY NO MEANS the last word on current evolutionary thought.  It does
seem however, that creationists in general LOVE to dig up these ideas that
the scientific community has abandoned in favor of better ones.  Certainly
these ideas provide plenty of grist for the creationist mill.  However, this
may be the single most significant reason the evolutionists see the 
creationists as little more than hecklers or rabble rousers.  If one is to
argue effectively against evolution, one must spend some time to determine
what evolutionist claims are accepted by the mainstream scientific community,
and not digging up old rejected ideas and presenting them as current.
Remember, you may be trying to sell your ideas to the scientific community
(maybe you're not, and just trying to propagandize the public?).
Once you demonstrate a lack of knowledge of present thought, or present
your case in an inconsistent manner, you strike the impression of being
ill-informed, fanatical, or eccentric.  Again remember that the creationists
are trying to re-sell the idea that evolution replaced!  Generally new
theories better explain the evidence than the old ones, and in fact that
is usually why the are favored over the old ones. 


>Ooh!  Disagreement between evolutionists!  I'd better call a press
>conference and trump this up into some story about the demise of
>confidence in the theory of evolution!  (just kidding, just
>kidding...)
>
>Paul DuBois	{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
>
Well, you may be just kidding, but this sort of thing has certainly 
been used as a creationist tactic designed to debunk evolution.  
For the general public not well educated in evolution, such tactics 
misrepresent current evolutionary thought.  THIS is why scientists talk 
about creationist 'propaganda', as much of the creationist position is 
founded on misinterpreted or rejected ideas.

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd