[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Where are my posts going now ?
Aaargh ! TerryC, I like your practice of crossposting to various groups,
but methinks maybe something may have gone amiss in the translation. This
is quite an old post, so I'm not sure if I remember what I actually wrote
in the first place (as the only creationist-basher on the list named peter).
>I'd never deliberately slag you off Peter, but here's a few points raised by
>your creationist-bashing escapade;
You have yet to personally offend me Terry, and I'd prefer to keep it
that way. My views on Creationism have been expounded many times in this
list and I shan't inflict them on the long-suffering subscribers again.
My problems arise mainly from continued misinterpretations on
evolutionary theory by creationists. When these misinterpretations find
their way into populist made-for-schools magazines like Creation Ex
Nihilo, it becomes quite frustrating. Misrepresenting evolutionary theory
is just as bad as evolutionist stating that all creationists are
>1) Pandas (the Giant _Ailuropoda menoleucea_) ARE bears. Red pandas are
>procyonids, and the similarities between the two species (protruding 'wrist
>bone', s-shaped penis, bamboo diet and atypical dentition) are convergences.
Apologies. My zoology is more directed towards invertebrates than cuddly
beasts. My point was that the article in Creation Ex Nihilo went along
the "typical" mold - take a "sacred cow" of evolution and then try to
blow it out of the water. In this case they took the "thumb" of the
giant and red pandas, now regarded as an example of convergence rather
than proof of relationship. Gould used it as an example of how examples
of imperfection (making do with what we've got) is evidence for
evolution, rather than "perfect" adaptation. The article in Creation Ex
Nihilo used it as an example of how the Creator made his beasts to suit
their lifestyle. I like Gould's version better.
>2) Mokele-Mbembe is the correct spelling for the Congolese swamp monster.
>Tales and sightings of this thing seem based on large varanids, crocodiles and
>elephants. Mackal had ludicrously suggested that various Congolese legendary
>beasts represent living sauropods, stegosaurs and ceratopsians! A creature
>supposedly seen in New Guinea, the Row, has been described as an extant
>theropod (again, seemingly a varanid [_Varanus salvadori_ of NG is the longest
>extant lizard, and can rear to a bipedal height of about 5 foot, which is near
>enough the height of the Row]). Meanwhile, a Babylonian 'dragon' decorating a
>palace gate is believed by some eminent cryptozoologists to depict another
>extant dinosaur! Utter bollox!
My inclusion of the Creationist comments on "living fossils" was used to
demonstrate another favourite piece of misinformation they like to put
out - according to evolutionary theory, evolutionary processes are
constantly changing _all_ species, therefore the existence of "living
fossils" disproves evolution because they must have "moved on". Quite
simply, there is nothing in evolutionary theory that says that all things
must change, regardless of what is happening from the outside. In fact,
the whole concept precludes this idea. The Creationists love to play with
the success of so-called "primitive" animals like marsupials. There ain't
nothing primitive about modern marsupials, or inefficient about their
mode of reproduction. Kangaroos manage quite well, thank you very much.
Evolutionists no longer believe in a chain of being composed of modern
animals placed in order of advancement, but this is a concept that is
taking a long time to filter down to some Creationists.
>3) The Zaiyomaru carcass, caught in the net of a Jap trawler
Did I mention this ?
I'm a skeptical fortean. That's not an oxymoron (notice I didn't use a
capital S), it just means that I will always consider the Skeptic "swamp
gas" explanation just as carefully as I will consider the other
viewpoints offered. I don't automatically disregard a scientific notion
just because it tends to be a particular hobbyhorse the Skeptics like to
push. The Creationists worry me because their brand of Creationism has a
narrow theological and ideological basis. They would like to see their
theories taught in schools and universities regardless of other belief
systems. It's not just biology they want to affect, it's cosmology and
flood theory and their own particular slant on history and ethics as well
The creationists carry a lot of ideological baggage with them,
and I shudder at the thought of a Muslim student being forced to have
"Christian Values" forced down their throats in a science
class. Has evolutionary theory done this ? Most definitely, but I think
science should be non-denominational enough to offend all religions
>Ow! I just shot off one of my feet.....
Crosspost as thou wilt, Terry, but could you do the courtesy of letting
me know where it ends up, so I can at least defend myself before I forget
what I said.
off to wipe the slag off and to try and think of a creative way to slip
"Love is a many splintered thing" into his sig.