>FK> Plenty of opportunity in both Arkansas and Louisiana.
>FK> If they weren't put on the stand by the creationist side --
>FK> why not? They called Wickramasinghe in Arkansas and he said
>FK> YECs were "crazy".
LA> You don't seem to have learned anything since you were
LA> last here Frank.
You certainly qualify as an authority on not learning anything, since you never do. I grant you that much, but nothing more.
LA> There was nothing of substance in your last two messages
There's never anything of substance in ANY of your messages. Just the same quotebook nonsense ad infinitum.
LA> nor was the most part of this one any better!
LA> However, you seem to be so hopelessly confused on the above
LA> Court cases that some comment is needed!
You're the one who is hopelessly confused.
LA> Firstly, there is every chance that the Judge in the
LA> Arkansas case was an evolutionist himself and therefore
LA> hardly without a biased personal position!
Big deal. His views on evolution have little to do with his ruling.
LA> Secondly, there is also some chance that the Arkansas
LA> State attorney himself was also an evolutionist. In any case
LA> his preparation to defend the State against the widely
LA> experiended ACLU's "smart" lawyers was pathetically
LA> inadequate.
AG Clark's preparation was guided by Duane Gish. If said prep was inadequate, whose fault was that? Gish constantly conferred with Clark throughout the trial, passed him notes during testimony, and did everything but testify or try the case himself.
LA> Thirdly, whether Wickramasinghe differed sharply from the
LA> Creationist views on the "age" of the earth or not, was
LA> utterly irrelevant
At best you can term Wick an unorthodox old earth theistic evolutionist, with little tolerance for YECism disguised as science. Amongst other things, he testified that the earth's geology could not be explained by catastrophism centered on a single worldwide flood, and that no rational scientist could possibly believe earth to be younger than a million years
LA> even if the Judge DID show his obvious bias in commenting on this.
Judge Overton's comment merely expressed curiosity as to why Wick was called as a witness, since his testimony did much to undermine the state's case and little to support it. Amongst other things, Wick clearly stated that "creation science" was ultimately religious in origin -- which is precisely opposite of the case the state was trying to defend -- that is, that "creation science" is at root empirical; thus "balanced treatment" would not involve the teaching of religion. Wick directly and explicitly contradicted that claim; his testimony also showed that the "two-models" approach is at best overly simplistic -- and that was the reason for the judge's comment on the matter.
LA> That court case was about a law
LA> mandating BALANCED TREATMENT and NOT about the age of the
LA> earth.
The question at hand was whether or not the so-called balanced treatment law [590] was purely secular in origin or involved the teaching of religion. The state's central task was to demonstrate to the court that "creation science" was empirical rather than religious.
LA> Wickramasinghe was there as a witness for balanced treatment
And testified that creationism is essentially religious -- precisely the opposite of whhat thhe state was attempting to demonstrate.
LA> even if the Judge was so confused that he
LA> had apparently forgotten what it was all about!
You seem to be the one who's confused about the case. When are you going to comprehend that your creationist secondary sources are full of misrepresentations and outright lies?
LA> However Wickramasinghe, despite his sharp differences
LA> with Creation Scientists on the age of the earth, showed
LA> clearly his GREATER contempt for the orthodox evolutionary
LA> position - as you should know, if you had read much about
LA> the case
I've not only read about the case, I've read the trial transcript. I have a copy of Judge Overton's decision right here. Unlike you, I rely on primary sources for information instead of dredging up sludge from creationist screeds.
Wick not only failed to express contempt for evolution as process, his expressed view is that life on earth *EVOLVED* from viruses or similar entities that originated in dust clouds in outer space. His view that the universe is infused with a creator makes him a cosmic pantheist evolutionist. Wick is a mild-mannered Sri-Lankan math professor who lives in Wales and seems
incapable of holding anyone in contempt. He disagrees philosophically with *atheists* -- not *evolutionists* -- and is annoyed that his and Hoyle's cosmic virus theories haven't been accepted for publication in mainstream scientific journals [if you read some of their *evidence* for viruses from space, like the scattered outbreaks on influenza at residences at Oxford University, you can see the basis for rejection -- Occam's razor applied to several alternative explanations is sufficient]. But nowhere does Wick advance the view that "creation science" be given equal time in the schools.
Wick differs from "orthodox evolutionists" [as opposed to "unorthox ..", I suppose] only in that -- Wick says life originated in outer space and came here on comets "orthodox evolutionists" are generally little concerned about life's origins, viewing the matter as unknown and unknowable at this time, despite attempts by creationists to make that the central issue in the dispute.
Both Wick and "orthodox evolutionists" are of the opinion that the diverse life forms on earth *evolved* from primitive entities probably similar to viruses. The only disagreements concern the details of HOW.
LA> as well as the fact that I have corrected you at
LA> least five times in the past on this very matter!
More like you've repeated the same ignorant nonsense ad infinitum. Just as you've been told repeatedly that Wick disagrees with *atheists* -- not *evolutionists*, and that his cosmic pantheistic evolutionism resembles "creation science" about as much as a kangaroo resembles a cockroach.
LA> "Wickramasinghe said he and Hoyle had not published their
LA> research in standard scientific journals because the editors
LA> of these journals generally are closed-minded to anything
LA> which questions Darwinian ideas on the origin and
LA> development of life."
Darwin's views on the ultimate origin of life are irrelevant here. Hoyle/Wick's cosmic virus theories about life weren't published in standard scientific journals because they lack convincing evidence. Journals typically get much more material submitted than they have space to publish. They choose the most relevant and best documented. In science unorthodox ideas are readilly accepted once sufficient convincing evidence is offered in their support.
LA>"Instead they chose to publish in a book form so their
LA> critics and they would be free to have exchange of ideas on
LA> the matter. He said the general committment of the
LA> scientific community to the "conventional wisdom" about
LA> biology made it nearly impossible for most people to
LA> objectively analyze ideas that called the "conventional
LA> wisdom" into question, and added that his own lack of
LA> training in biology since he graduated from college was an
LA> advantage to him because he would have been "hamstrung" by
LA> the "conventional wisdom."
So what? If sufficient evidence arises to support their viruses from space theory it will be accepted. Otherwise it won't. Einstein's relativity theories weren't immediately accepted either. But when observations and experiments agreed with his predictions, the scientific establishment readilly accomodated relativity, just as quantum mechanics gained acceptance later, despite its rather bizarre features.
LA> "[He stated that you cannot accommodate the conventional
LA> wisdom in a rational framework. He said that creationism "so
LA> profoundly and so deeply" challenges the main line thinking
LA> in biology. He asserted that children who are made to accept
LA> the evolutionary model in the classroom are "brainwashed."
LA>
LA> "He added, "It is the biggest travesty of all that a
LA> society would close its mind to the biggest question of all,
LA> the origins of life."]
Life which he says originated as viruses in cosmic dust clouds and rode here on comets.
LA> "When asked to compare evolution and creation as to
LA> their religious overtones, Wickramasinghe said they were
LA> both "deeply religious," and that if he had to choose
LA> between the two, he thinks evolution is religiously "more
LA> insidious and has more evil implications" than creationism."
I.e. Wick says creationism is religious, whereas the state of Arkansas was maintaining that statute 590 was secular rather than religious. Doesn't help the case for 590 much, does it?
LA> (The Creator in the Courtroom: "Scopes II", Norman L.
LA> Geisler, et al, 1982, p. 152)
LA>
LA> So, in spite of the number of times you have had this
LA> explained to you already
You yourself obviously don't comprehend it worth diddly-squat, which fact youu demonstrate repeatedly.
LA> do you now, start to understand what it is all about at last?
Yup. But you certainly don't --
Geisler says that Wick says evolution is "religiously 'more insidious and has more evil implications' than creationism."
Unfortunately for your argument we can derive the following from Geisler --
According to Wick the following hold true --
1. evolutionism is insidious and has evil implications
2. creationism is insidious and has evil implications
and --
3. evolutionism is more insidious and has more evil implications than creationism.
The old "lesser of two evils" argument in drag!
What a YUK you creationists are! You can't even comprehend when you debunk yourselves.
You also have Wick maintaining the following two positions --
1. Life on earth *evolved* from cosmic viruses
2. *Evolution* is insidious and has evil implications.
From which we can conclude that Wick thinks his own theory is insidious and has evil implications.
If you actually read the trial transcript you'd know that wick was talking about *atheism* rather than *evolution*; Geisler, like the rest of you cretinists, insists on confusing the two.
The pope is an evolutionist, but he is not an atheist. Ditto the Archbishop of Canterbury and his anglican flock. Ditto all transcendentalist Xtians and Jews -- that is, most of them.
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe think Appleton's dumber than a cockroach -- and he's proving that they're right.
Cheers.