Bruce L Grubb (
Wed, 11 Dec 1996 07:23:34 -0700

In article <58l50v$>, (Ed Conrad) wrote:

> Ryan Brown 942-7905 <> wrote:
> >If Ed wants to talk, I guess he can talk. But I do believe 15 is quite an
> >impressionable age (Looking back, I was quite impressionable at the time).
> >Ed's sugary sweet reponse to an honest request from a 15 year old smacked
> >of screaming paranoia, as do all his posts. But this post was
> >sugar-coated for easy consumption...too easy. Ed rhetoricizes pretty
> >well, and I can see he might grab some believers every once in a
> >while. So is this dangerous? I reply with a resounding "YES!"
> >Constructed worldviews are fine, but Ed's is outstandingly uncritical and
> >largely paranoid. Unfortunately, he shows serious interest in propagating
> >his worldview, quite readily seized an opportunity when it appeared,
> >and shot out a sticky pseudopod to the nearest and easiest target. If
> >such blatantly manipulative behavior persists, I say we take action to get
> >him removed, somehow, from these groups. We don't need someone with the
> >massive authority of "science" posting things like this to high school
> >kids...
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> First: There is MORE evidence and truth about man's origin and
> ancestry on Ted Holden's home page than in all the universities and
> museums of the world -- combined!

Prove this statement. Anyone can do interpertions or tell a story but the
key points of the open minded sceptic must also be there. Sceptical of
-both- sides in an arguement.

> Second: You're annoyed because a 15-year-old Australian schoolgirl
> with an interest in science and history is now aware that everythijng
> is certainly not kosher in the scientific discipline of physical
> anthropology and its related fields.

By your own post she said NOTHING of the kind Ed:

julia <> wrote to alt.archaeology:

>Greetings and Salutations!
> My name is Julia and I love history. I am 15, and plan to do a PhD
>in History at the Australian National University, might as well learn a
>little now!! Just thought I'd introduce myself...

>Smile everyone
>Julia :)

> She now knows that only deceipt, dishonesty, collusion and conspriacy
> has prevented the abolishment and total abandonment
> of a Santa Claus fantasy about man's inhuman ancestry.

Creationism is more Santa Claus fantasy than evolution. Little history lesson:

In essence, a structure stands until 1) it becomes too complicated,
2) becomes ad hoc {untestable}, and/or 3) cannot explain observations made.

The factions we call evolutionists and creationists have been
battling it out for a long time. The oldest reference I can find to a
split in the theories on the history of the earth is between the
Plutonists and Neptunists around the 1750's.

Plutonists believed that the movement of the earth was the primary shaper
of the land while Neptunists believed water and in particular the Flood
were the primary shapers of the land. As you have no doubt guested they
got their names from two Roman dieties: Pluto who ruled the underworld and
Neptune who ruled the seas.

Because Plutonists believed in a uniform pattern of change they eventially
became called Uniformitarians. As Neptunists suggested that a series
of small and large catastrophes had shaped the earth they became known as

It was not until Darwin's and Wallece's theories came out (1859) that these
groups began to call themselves Evolutionists (Uniformitarian) and
Creationists (Catastrophism).

The real reason the Creationism structure failed is not due the the rise of
humanism but because
1) strict interpretations did not agree with observations baced on
Uniformitarianism Geology {1787},
2) it could not explain the placement of fossils and rocks in layers
3) got overly complicated beginning with Cuvier's double flood theory
{1813} and ended up with 6 "Gardens of Eden",
4) could not explain alterations of fresh and sea water animals in stata
{1831}, and
5) No amount of mathematics could keep Noah's ark from sinking even at the
Genus level {~1840s}.
Please note that Darwin's book did not come out until 1859 and by that time
the Creationism structure was already pulling apart at the seams.

In fact up to Darwin and Wallece the Catastrophists had their own Evolution
theory: The Great Chain of Being. In essence this was varient of
Progressive Evolution; everything gradaded into the form below and above it
and under the right conditions could -progress- up to the next form.

On a side note: Socialistic Darwinism is accually a merging of Progressive
and Darwinian evolution.

> Yet, despite the total absence of what honest scientists would regard
> as scientific evidence, this fictional fable has remained afloat for
> many decades, continually poisoning the minds of thousands upon
> thousands upon MULTI-thousands of impressionable youth.

Define scientific evidence because as I pointed out a long time ago in
another thread the term varies depending whether the science is hard or
soft. (yehuda silver) wrote:
>Maybe the best approach is to teach Biology in Public schools i.e.
>scientific knowledge arrived at through hypthesis and experimental
>c) evolution (which does not satisfy the strict definition of SCIENCE,
>i.e. a hypothesis later confiremed through experiment!

This definition of "science" is flawed because it applies only to the
_hard_ sciences NOT to the _soft_ sciences.

Let me explain.
A _hard_ science is the standard 1) formulate theory, 2) test theory by
doing repeated experiments or observations of repeated or repeatable
events, and 3) confirm or reject theory.
Physics, Astronomy, Geology, Mathematics and most parts of Biology are hard

A _soft_ science on the other hand is the observation and explanation of
things that are NOT repeatable but can be confirmed or discounted by
further observations or interpertations of existing data. Since these
sciences are dependent on observations and interpretations they are highly
dependent on the culture that they come from in the type of theories
History, Anthropology, and Theology are soft sciences.
And, yes Theology IS a science: "the _science_ or study of divine things or
religious truth" (Random House Dictionary of the English Language)

So which definition of "scientific evidence" is being use? The -hard-
science one or the -soft- science one?