Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!ward
From: ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: belief systems
Message-ID: <1555@hao.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-May-85 23:37:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: hao.1555
Posted: Wed May 22 23:37:48 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 24-May-85 21:42:21 EDT
References: <1128@uwmacc.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 49

> 
>      Finally, does Mike really have such a high opinion of himself that he
> thinks his capacity for understanding exceeds that of creationists?  Besides
> the great creationists of the past, who founded most branches of the sciences
> (some of whom have been listed in previous postings), and besides the thousands
> of creation scientists today who hold Ph.D.s, what would Mike do with a man
> like Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith?  He has earned not one, not two, but three
> doctoral degrees in the sciences.  Can Mike make such a claim?  Is his ego
> really that inflated?  I trust he simply did not state his question clearly;
> he now has an opportunity to correct that misunderstanding.

Judging from the postings of the creationists on this net - which
is really all the information I have to base an opinion on -
my six year old son has a greater capacity for understanding
than the creationists.  My demented great-aunt has a greater
capacity.  With almost no exceptions (a nod here to Paul) the
creationists who post to this net show absolutely no understanding
of logic, of science, or of ethics.  Absurd arguments are posted
and the facts that refute them are ignored.  People are quoted
out of context and the facts that correct these are ignored.
To claim a greater capacity for understanding than creationists
is no great claim.

The paragraph copied above is an example of this.  Ray cites
the greatness of creationists of the past to give evidence of the
intelligence of creationists.  Using this as a measure, we could
make a case for the physics of Aristotle.  There were many people
who lived in the past who were vastly more intelligent than I,
and yet were wrong.  I have the benefit of a *whole* lot more
information than they did.  I have flown in an airplane, so I
know that all those who thought that such a thing was impossible
were wrong.  I have seen photographs of the whole Earth, so I
know that it is not flat.  I have access to an enormous amount
of data that has been assembled by a bunch of people more bright
than myself.  I have seen how science is able to build theories that
are predictive and verifiable.  I have seen how theories that
are derived independently support each other and lead to results
that work.  Creationists see all this and are still able to be
as wrong as those who lived centuries ago.

As for the papered creationists living today, I can't say much.
I can do nothing with a man like E. A. Wilder-Smith since I know
nothing about him.  I do know that there are a great many people
with Ph.D's who are utter fools.  I do know that the human capacity
for self-delusion is immense.  And I do know that the power of
religion to twist the thinking of a person is virtually unlimited.
Dr. Wilder-Smith may very well be an extremely brilliant and
talented scientist.  But if he believes that creationism is science,
then on this subject he is as wrong as Aristotle was.