Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-lymph!arndt
From: arndt@lymph.DEC
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Pathetic?
Message-ID: <1852@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Apr-85 00:19:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.1852
Posted: Fri Apr 26 00:19:38 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Apr-85 06:16:39 EDT
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 29


Padraig Houlahan says it's 'pathetic' to point out the error of past
evolutionary arguments (he references mention of embryo development as
an argument for evolution is no longer used and to point that out is
to en effect to beat a dead horse) since no one believes them any longer.

But this is merely the same kind of argument religious people us to point
out to non believers when they, the non believers hold up silly notions
of what the believers really believe!  Such as the utterly stupid idea 
that God has to be explained - who/what caused God?

Many uninformed believers in evolution, just like the uniformed unbelievers
in God, still hold to outmoded or bogus ideas to bolster their convictions.
WHAT MANY EVOLUTIONISTS ON THIS NET SEEM TO FAIL TO REALIZE IS THE THE
'ENVIRONMENT' IN WHICH THE 'DEBATE' ABOUT EVOLUTION IS TAKING PLACE IN OUR
SOCIETY TODAY IS ONE IN WHICH EVOLUTION IS SEEN TO HAVE CARRIED THE DAY,
AND SO IT IS RIGHT, AS A TECHNIQUE, TO CRITICISE EVOLUTION POINT BY POINT
IN MAKING A CASE FOR CREATIONISM.

As has been pointed out here several times, while the exhalted presenses
on the net may not believe any longer in the development of the embryo
as a argument for evolution it is still an 'evidence' with much of the
'great unwashed' public school herd.  Still in some textbooks used, etc.
Perhaps the most that can be said against mentioning the idea on the net
is that most HERE no longer use it.  But pathetic? . . . no.

Regards,

Ken Arndt