Date: Mon Nov 01 1993 18:05:42 To: All Subj: More Tribune Letters Attr: EVOLUTION

Date:   Mon Nov 01 1993  18:05:42
From:   David Bloomberg
To:     All
Subj:   More Tribune Letters
Attr:
EVOLUTION                      -------------------------------

The Chicago Tribune appears to be allowing a back and forth to continue in the
letters column.  A couple months ago, I posted the Vista article, then the 2
pro-evolution letters, then 3 anti-evolution letters.  Apparently there was
another pro-evolution letter on 10/12, which I missed since I was temporarily
not getting the paper.  Today, there was another anti-evolution letter.  Here
it is, and my comments are in the next message:

CHICAGO--Reinhard Plaut's letter of Oct. 12, in discussing whether evolution is
based on observable processes, once again serves to perpetuate the ridiculous
notion that concepts religious in nature can have no connection to science.
    Imagine if this sort of intellectual snobbery were applied to other
disciplines.  Would we pretend that Abraham's ancient city of Ur did not really
exist simply because it is referenced in a "religious" book and as such must be
kept away from the "true" disciplines of history and archaeology?  Must we
assume that the Bible's contributions to our knowledge of Israel, Egypt,
Assyria and the Persian empire are all "religious" and therefore not connected
to "real" history?
    Yet somehow, when the topic is evolution/creation, we are expected to
believe evolution is a fact beyond question and any notion of special creation
is purely religion and separate from science.  We are asked to believe that
thousands of scientists with Ph.D.s in geology, biology, physics and other
fields who tell us that a vast body of evidence repudiates evolution and
supports the concept of creation are really just biased and blind religionists
who know nothing of logic, the rules of evidence or the scientific method.
    Evolutionists are pulling the wool oever the eyes of the public by defining
science as purely naturalistic and excluding special creation based on their
own narrow definition.  In doing so, they ensure that all "scientific facts"
must inevitably support evolution.  You can't lose when you get to make all the
rules.
                                            Dan Sullivan


--- msgedsq 2.0.5
 * Origin: The Temples of Syrinx! (1:2430/2112)


Date:   Mon Nov 01 1993  18:12:52
From:   David Bloomberg
To:     All
Subj:   More Tribune Letters
Attr:
EVOLUTION                      -------------------------------

In a msg to All on , David Bloomberg of 1:2430/2112 writes:

 DB>     Imagine if this sort of intellectual snobbery were applied to
 DB> other disciplines.  Would we pretend that Abraham's ancient city of Ur
 DB> did not really exist simply because it is referenced in a "religious"
 DB> book and as such must be kept away from the "true" disciplines of
 DB> history and archaeology?  Must we assume that the Bible's
 DB> contributions to our knowledge of Israel, Egypt, Assyria and the
 DB> Persian empire are all "religious" and therefore not connected to
 DB> "real" history?

But would we simply accept these things with NO other evidence?  I know of no
historian who would.

 DB>     Yet somehow, when the topic is evolution/creation, we are expected
 DB> to believe evolution is a fact beyond question and any notion of

Untrue.  We are expected to hold to the scientific method.

 DB> special creation is purely religion and separate from science.  We are

Unless he can find some scientific evidence, yes.

 DB> asked to believe that thousands of scientists with Ph.D.s in geology,
 DB> biology, physics and other fields who tell us that a vast body of
 DB> evidence repudiates evolution and supports the concept of creation are
 DB> really just biased and blind religionists who know nothing of logic,
 DB> the rules of evidence or the scientific method.

What about the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS who oppose them and are not creation 
believers?  Does he ignore these many in favor of the few?

Also, it has been my personal experience that most creationists are NOT Ph.D.s
in biology and geology and related fields, but are engineers and scientists in
other fields away from those directly related to evolution.

 DB>     Evolutionists are pulling the wool over the eyes of the public by
 DB> defining science as purely naturalistic and excluding special creation
 DB> based on their own narrow definition.  In doing so, they ensure that
 DB> all "scientific facts" must inevitably support evolution.  You can't
 DB> lose when you get to make all the rules.

Interesting.  First he says that the scientists he mentions above know the
rules of evidence, then he implies that special creation doesn't follow those
rules, thereore contradicting himself.

--- msgedsq 2.0.5
 * Origin: The Temples of Syrinx! (1:2430/2112)