From: Marty Leipzig                                    4 Aug 94  04:17
To  : Arthur Biele
Subj: All of this, 'eh?

    My, my, my, Art. Either you have an inordinate amount of free
    time or a direct pipeline to the ICR. Apparently both.

    25 whole posts, all directed to me. I suppose that I should be
    impressed.

    I'm not.

    I really don't know if you fundy creationists think that this is
    the first time that we've seen all this creation nonsense
    before. You gleefully (and obstreperously) post quote after
    quote (some looking suspiciously out-of-context), time worn
    accusation after banal allegation of illogic, non sequiturs and
    just plain, flat out solecisms. I have neither the time nor
    desire to dismember your rather lengthy posts point for point,
    but will rather demonstrate their overall general absurdity
    here.

    Your protestations notwithstanding, evolution does NOT address
    the question of the origin of life on this planet; no more than
    your squalid statistics. Rant, wail and rave all you want,
    Arthur, but this strawman you've built is of the highest fiber.
    Your insistence to the opposite matters not one whit the
    definition of biological evolution.  Science is, of course,
    based upon definition.

    It is not only capricious, but malicious, to redefine something
    to fit your own prejudices, Art. It's also dishonest.

    Further, why do you think that biopoesis (I know you just hate
    that term, hence my fondness for it) is also described as
    PREevolutionary protobiogenesis? Definition, Art. The basis of
    science. Also, a quality sorely absent from your posts.

    Secondly, your railing about transitionals. Sad, indeed. I could
    present you with a thousand more documented examples of
    transitional animals, and these still would not be transitional
    enough for you. It is truly amazing that you cannot comprehend
    the fact that taxonomy is a human construct which is applied to
    a natural biological continuum. By definition, every extinct or
    extant organism is transitional (except for clones, but we were
    discussing natural selection).  Envision a continuum of color
    from carmine to electric yellow.  Somewhere we draw the
    ARBITRARY line that separates the "yellow clan" from the "red
    clan". Is it natural? No. Is it absolute? No. Is it fixed? No.
    The same applies to the fossil record and the whole of organic
    life.  Really, Art, it's not that tough to comprehend.

    Moving forward, your apparent exultation at posting scientists
    apparently dissenting viewpoints is so obvious. You've aptly
    demonstrated that we scientists are indeed guilty. Guilty as
    charged. Guilty of doing science.  You see, Art, unlike your
    rigid and dogmatic approach to apparently everything (you are
    stumping for God, aren't you? Strange that you didn't address my
    imputations to that effect in my package of posts to you),
    science cannot afford that "luxury".  Science is fluid,
    expanding, self-correcting and, dare say I, evolving body of
    knowledge; subject to critical analysis, review, dissent, re-
    review, analysis and above all, reinterpretation as more data
    becomes available.  Your quaint and curious mythology would just
    shrivel to dust under such scrutiny. Perhaps that's why there
    are so many "mysteries of faith". Keep 'em, science neither
    requires nor desires them.

    Another point that you seem to be incapable of grasping is the
    fact that macroevolution is defined as simply microevolution
    over the span of geological time. Why this should be such a
    difficult concept for you to grasp is beyond cognition.

    Oh, and a heartfelt thanks for finally defining the misbegotten
    term "kind" (I've kept that post of yours, it's a beaut). So,
    academician Biele, "kind" = "family"? Simply amazing. After all
    these years, even your best gurus at the ICR could not define
    the term, and yet right here, in our little forum, you've
    grabbed the bull by the short and curlies and given it a real
    "meaning". Meaning, of course, that this will haunt you.

    As for your failed attempt to prove creation by disproving
    evolution, you should realize that that is not the course of
    neither science nor logic. First, this is not a binary universe.
    There are always more than two possibilites. Sorry, Art, but
    that's the way the cosmos crumbles. Secondly, instead of trying
    to prove a negative (divine creation) by falsifying evolution;
    why not instead provide positive physical evidence for this
    creation? It's a fool's errand to be sure, but I think you're
    just the right individual for that task.

    Finally, I do so wish more laymen would have your courage to
    speak their minds and tell us ignorant old scientists just how
    science is SUPPOSED to be done; instead of our pursuing logic,
    rigorous analysis and the scientific method. All we would have
    to do is consult an ancient book of myth.

    Really, now Art. What is your motive behind all this subterfuge?
    You really don't care a fig about evolution, biopoesis (there's
    that word again...) or any natural science, now do you? You're
    just miffed that science has made your God superfluous and
    removed "the enlightened" from the belly-button of the universe.
    It's really rather covert (and dishonest) to say otherwise, Art.
    If you're so intent on proselytizing, why not just come out and
    do so, instead of building this elaborate, albeit effete,
    facade?

    This is a time consuming, and much like trying to teach an iguana to
    sing, a futile conversation. I have the backing of the facts and
    methodology of science and you the dogma of your book. It is obvious
    that you are impervious to logic, so I can see no further use continuing
    this conversation. If you ever drop the facade and try legitimate
    questions instead of couching everything to reflect back on your
    ancient book of myths, perhaps then we could make some progress.
    This echo is too busy and you're too windy for me to want to
    bother. If you keep posting that ICR drek, I'll refute it
    publically, but as far as I am concerned, this dialogue has just
    become a monologue.



... Evolution is both fact and theory. Creationism is neither.