Ward:
>Number one, the paper is not bashful about being based on the authority or
>knowings of David Wolfe himself, i.e., it is an egotistical presentation
>(and I use this word purely for its descriptive denotation, not emotional
>connotations), based on rejecting science almost wholesale as a mode of
>knowing.

Davis Wolfe is heavily inspired and influenced by motivational and
self-improvement guru Tony Robbins and clearly shows the limitations in
trying to improve ones self-image solely by engaging in pep talk to the
reflection of ones mirror. For people who have lost their soul and their
humanity, NLP (neuro linguistic programming) is easily misused and becomes
a calculating and egoistical affirmation for greed and crass self-promotion.

> Whether something is sudden or not is just a question of how microscopic
>the timescale is. Line up enough sudden and random--but
>microscopic--mutations at the molecular level of DNA, and voila, you have
">gradual" evolution looked at from afar. It's all a question of the
">resolution" of the lens or microscope/
>telescope--how wide a view of time--you are taking.

Very good point. One of the strongest pieces of evidence for the existence
of evolution is IMO the fact that major genetic changes can take place
within the span of only a few years as with the recent example in the
Caribbean mentioned not long ago on this list where a newly introduced
animal on of the islands underwent dramatic changes to adapt to the new
environment. I forget the specifics but it is in the archives which are
rebooting as I am writing this.

> I.e., if you believe in science at all--that the many modern applied
>technologies such as atomic bombs, electronics, bioengeering, actually
>work--and the theories of  subatomic physics, genetics, etc., that give
>rise to them--are real, then you can't just legislate away radiocarbon
>dating, thermoluminescence dating, electron-spin resonance dating, and all
>the other techniques used to date fossils that are based on the same
>science that has given rise to all manner of modern high-tech devices and
>technologies we depend on in our daily lives, and that we can see work
>just like the theory says they ought to.

This is an excellent point. Selectively referring to science when it
supports ones contentions and to resort to fictive and esoteric
explanations when it does not are very common evasive tactics used among
extreme idealists of all colors.  It is exhausting debating with such
people as the only logic they follow is that of the deterministic
opportunist who recognizes no common rules for fact or communication. When
the end justifies the means, righteouness and arrogance rules and doubt and
open inquiry are not options. I think that one of the explanations that
such intellectual dishonesty seems to have become so kosher these days is
that science too often has been corrupted by special interests especially
in the areas of health and medicine which has left people confused and
disillusioned and easy prey to the easy solutions of demagogy.

>By any scientific standard, evolution has massive amounts of evidence going
>for it. For creationism, you have appeal only to a supernatural God, or to
>unverified spores from space or extraterrestrials, with no scientifically
>supportable chain of evidence as such for that being the mechanism of how
>fossil forms actually appeared. It's religion or science--that's the choice
>you put to people--which is it going to be?

For somebody who always "knows" the truth this is a completely irrelevant
question. ;-)

>A final comment worth reiterating is that the Nature's First Law group as
>an entity often displays an ambivalent attitude about science that lacks
>any real consistency. (This might of course be due to somewhat differing
>viewpoints among the threesome making up the group--hard to say.) On the
>one hand, they freely sprinkle alleged scientifically backed factoids in
>their postings in support of their point of view. (But virtually always
>without citing traceable scientific sources for others to see if what they
>say is really true or not, or has not been distorted, of course.) Yet in
>other postings, they can be rabidly anti-science, as in postings similar to
>one I have seen for instance, that put down me and Kirt Nieft for (I am
>paraphrasing roughly here, going by memory) "prostrating themselves on the
>altar of science." This tells you quite a bit about where the group is
>coming from in terms of their use-science-if-it-suits,
>condemn-it-if-it-doesn't approach, which relies more on emotional
>demogoguery than consistent logic.

OOPS. Ward sent me the final passage above to replace the previous version
he had just sent me and stupid me just added it on instead of swapping the
two. I will take out the first version of the "A final comment..." passage
when I edit the September archives next month. I am sorry for the
confusion. It was my sloppiness - not Ward's.

Ward, thanks for another excellent contribution.

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]