Re: Are we "special"?

Phillip Bigelow (
Fri, 06 Dec 1996 23:35:42 -0800

> >Paul Crowley <> wrote in article

> >> In a sense, we all know that we are "special",
> >> whereas the profession has, almost perversely, decided
> >> otherwise and is determined not to provide the answers we all
> >> want.

You know, Paul, you believers are in a special club of your own,
did you know that?

To illustrate my point, I am reposting a part of a post from one
of the Internet's biggest Creationist Net-loons (who goes by the
name of "Ed Conrad":

Begin repost:
SUBJECT: RE: YUMPIN' TIMMINY! Conrad and Holden are taking over!
DATE: 4 Dec 1996 14:01:36 GMT
FROM (Ed Conrad)
ORGANIZATION: ProLog-PenTeleData, Inc.

Ed writes:
"If you had any sense of decency, what you'd REALLY want for Christmas
is for your grandchildren and great-grandchildren to have a better
approximation of the truth of man's origin and far-remote ancestry, so
they eventually realize that they-- and all of us-- are
something very, very special."

End of Ed's blather.

Paul continues:
> >> We must be be able to show that we are
> >> "special" in our physiology. This is entirely possible.

Your quest only has merit and meaning IF one comes in with
a specio-centric- (and somewhat of a Book of Genesis-) attitude
about humans from the start. Paul, most scientists strive to be a
bit more objective than you and Ed Conrad are.
Most scientists would rather ignore the "see how special we are"
issues (which are essentially fallacious points, anyway),
and instead do real science. Leave the spiritual
journeys to other UseNet newsgroups. In spite of the fact
that you are an evolutionist, you still follow the same premise
as do creationist zeolots such as Conrad. Funny how people who
are at opposite sides of a debate can still share common
ground, isn't it?

> >Are you getting the idea?

You bet.
You are Ed Conrad in an evolutionist's body!! :-)