D'Abrera

[John Grehan]

More comment in the name of D'Abrera (look where Lepidotpera may lead you)

>Actually, they WERE treated by the same criteria - even going so far as to
>call themselves "Creation Scientists" so as to invite the application of
>scientific standards to their work

I guess I'm looking at the situation a little differently. The criteria may
be "scientific
standards" but what constitutes "scientific standards" is itself a matter
of a particular
social relations. When there is an unorthodox point of view that is in
radical variance
to established notions, reactions from other scientists are often in the
form of questioning
of its scientific standards and validity, and in terms of the orthodox
view, the unorthodox
is generally found wanting. Sometimes this resistance is overcome,
sometimes not.
It seems to me that the point not made to creationists is that science is
competative in the
establishement of dominant ideas as a matter of which idea receieve the
most support
(i.e. is most popular).

>and have so far failed to produce a single result to support their positions.

This might be questioned by those supporting such positions. Myself, I am
less interested
in whether there is support or not as whether a particular research program
leads down
novel paths and insights in the empirical world. If it does not, its kind
of boring. In this context creationism, or creation science, is simply
boring (my personal view!) whether in the ultimate nature of the universe
it is true or not.

Is creationism a fraud? I could recognize particular efforts by
creationists that may be fraudulent, but if the paradigm is a genuine
belief, I'm not sure it can be always characterised in this way. It would
be like saying Darwinism is a fraud simply because some "Darwinists"
misconstrue or misrepresent alternatives.

If you're tired of this don't respond!

John Grehan