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!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!intelca!qantel!dual!mordor!ut-sally!utastro!padraig From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Pathetic? Message-ID: <7@utastro.UUCP> Date: Sat, 27-Apr-85 09:07:11 EDT Article-I.D.: utastro.7 Posted: Sat Apr 27 09:07:11 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 6-May-85 06:48:58 EDT References: <1852@decwrl.UUCP> Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX Lines: 65 > > 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. This point has already been responded to. I have said that one cannot attack evolution by attacking a discarded evolutionary argument. The point was that it was the one makeing the attack who stated that the embryo argument was no longer valid. In which case why bother? This is not saying whether or not the arguement is correct or not, a topic I leave to someone who knows more about the details than I do. > 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? Perhaps you could tell us why the "first explainer" should not be explained? If your god doesn't have to be explained, then neither does my cosmos have to be explained by a god. Not so stupid after all. "huh". > Many uninformed believers in evolution, just like the uniformed unbelievers > in God, still hold to outmoded or bogus ideas to bolster their convictions. That may very well be true, since science evolves :-) and one needs to continually beef up one the current crop of ideas. Perhaps you would enlighten us on net.religion as to what the "modern proofs" for the existence of god are. I would be interested in discussing them with you, if you wish. Anyway, a bad arguing style is bad, no matter who uses it. It doesn't justify it by trying to find instances where others use it. > 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. It is always correct to challange currently held ideas and theories, and in this respect creationists have done a lot of good. However, just because a theory is dominant one does not prove another by attacking it. To do so is not scientific proof for the other. > 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. I, to repeat myself, never claimed that the argument was correct, or incorrect. This point is irrelevant. > 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. The issue was not whether or not the arguement was used, but whether it is useful to attack a discarded argument. The debating style was, and still is pathetic. You seem to have understood this initially, judging by your lead paragraph. However you seem to have strayed a little since then. > Regards, > Ken Arndt Padraig Houlahan.