Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site petsd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!vax135!petsd!cjh
From: cjh@petsd.UUCP (Chris Henrich)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Ethics 'n Stuff
Message-ID: <503@petsd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Apr-85 16:15:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: petsd.503
Posted: Fri Apr 26 16:15:56 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Apr-85 08:32:45 EDT
References: <945@uwmacc.UUCP>, <555@cadovax.UUCP>
Organization: Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls, N.J.
Lines: 50

[]
	Keith Doyle has (perhaps inadvertently) mentioned an
attitude and practice of some scientists, which accounts for
much of the adverse reaction of the creationists.
> ...
> Science in general dosen't give a flying *** what the general public 
> thinks.  Scientists tell the general public what the SCIENTISTS think.
> ...
>                                Scientists decide among themselves
> what they think is valid, and only dissmeinate information regarding
> what they think that is. 
> ...
	Doubtless the intention of the scientific spokesmen being
described is simply to stick up for their convictions.  I
think, however, that it comes across as arrogance.  In
religious contexts, the word is "triumphalism."
	It is misleading to represent a scientific theory, even a
very well supported one, as a perfectly finished, tidy edifice that is
(by divine mandate?) preserved from all attack - a stately
temple of the intellect.  In fact, scientific activity is more
like a flea market than a stately temple.  It is always
a-buildin', never finished.  There are always arguments, and
there always have been.  Any theory worth while is the
object of vigorous controversy, and it changes over the years
as a result.  Only in a mediocre high-school textbook does it
seem otherwise.  
	I can sympathise with the harried teacher, trying to
persuade a roomful of teenagers that some theory about old
bones is worth learning.  I'd probably attempt to speak with
the authority of Mayr and Simpson myself.
	But people are not fooled for long; young people in
particular are sensitive to when some grownup is feeding them
bull sugar.  In a free country they are right to resent it.
	It seems to me that many of the creationist postings
on this news-group are in fact criticisms of a simplistic view
of evolutionary theory.  Sometimes they sound as if they want
biology to be simplistic, and condemn it because it isn't ...
I *hope* this is a mis-perception of what the critics really
mean.  I hope they really want to get past the straw men, the
caricatures, and the bumper-sticker slogans.  If so, then the
creationists are performing a constructive service.

Regards,
Chris

--
Full-Name:  Christopher J. Henrich
UUCP:       ..!(cornell | ariel | ukc | houxz)!vax135!petsd!cjh
US Mail:    MS 313; Perkin-Elmer; 106 Apple St; Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
Phone:      (201) 758-7288