At 11:02 AM -0600 3/20/02, Paul C. Smith wrote: >represents our best thinking in that area). I simply assume that there isn't >any science of intelligent design, because I assume that in fact >"intelligent design" is simply more creationist religion, and that the >"intelligent design theorists" are really just more people trying to replace >science with religion. The creationists' history of deliberate deceit makes >that the default assumption, in my opinion. If it's not true - if there >really IS a science of intelligent design - then I think the burden of >evidence is on the practitioners of that science to demonstrate that fact. >So far I've seen nothing, but again, I haven't bothered looking (for the >same reason that I'm not bothering with Elvis sightings).
I couldn't agree more with Paul, especially with his point about the history of deceipt on the part of Creationists. My wife, a librarian, brought home a slick looking publication the other day to show me. It is mailed to her library free of charge each month compliments of the Philadelphia Church of God (tithes and contributions from the congregation make it possible). The cover story this month was about the "false evidence that evolutionists use to support their pet theory." The article is maddening in its flawed logic and its deceipt. It is perfectly obvious that the author knows that he is misleading the poor and uninformed readers of this muck. At one point he sets up Haeckel's "ontology recapitulates phylogeny" notion as the strongest support for evolution and then uses one sentence from Stephen Jay Gould's critique of Haeckel's manipulated drawings to imply that this Harvard scientist is an antievolutionist. Later he makes the bold statement that there has never been any discovery of a fossil record of intermediate forms between current species which would suggest a common ancestor; he calls them the missing links of course. The overall implication of the article is that some scientists, for some unknown but evil reason, have decided to support this theory of evolution despite the fact that they know it to be flawed. What is transparent to someone who knows even a little about the theory and science is that the AUTHOR is doing just what he accuses the scientists of doing. So I imagine that many of the creationists out there have been influenced by outright lies, but ironically they are wary of the lies that they have been told to expect from scientists. Tim -- **************************************************************** Tim Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] Professor of Psychology phone: 864-833-8349 Presbyterian College fax: 864-833-8481 Clinton, SC 29325 **************************************************************** --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
