mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/30/83)
The draft proposal for a "philosophically neutral" basis or definition for
science starts off fine, but becomes self-contradictory the moment it
includes both the statement that hypotheses be falsifiable from data
obtained in a reproducible manner and the statement that it is permissible
to explain some data by divine intervention. This is self-contradictory
because ALL data can be explained by divine intervention with no
possibility that the hypothesis can be falsified. A scientist may
BELIEVE that such-and-such was caused by divine intervention, but as
a scientist, the hypothesis must be kept in the background in the
anticipation that one more in keeping with Occam's razor will account
for the data. Divine intervention for all events in the world is
the least parsimonious possible hypothesis (everything is contained
in the boundary values, nothing in the laws). Wherever an event can
be explained in a way consistent with other events or data, parsimony
is increased and the hypothesis becomes more acceptable to a scientist.
Sure, scientists can get their ideas from anywhere, and can hold any
beliefs, but a philosophically neutral science MUST exclude recourse
to a Deus ex Natura -- it's cheating to do otherwise.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmtlaura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (12/31/83)
This proposal may make a fair bit of ground in suggesting ways in which creationists could avoid the problems that arise when their beliefs contradicts that which is accwepted scientific wisdom, but premises like "I am real" and "The universe is real" entirely lock out those religions which profes a belief in an illusory self and world. This is something which is not done by the current definition of science (whatever that may be). However, there is a more serious problem, in that the whole article makes no attempt to distinguish between *the model* and *what it represents*. Statements like "the universe is real" and "the laws of logic are valid" are either products of this confusion, or are simply unworkable in discribing what is already considered science. Most people would agree that dreams are not real, for instance, but there are many disciplines of psychology that places great emphasis on understanding and interpreting dreams. Psychosomatic illness may not be real either, but they can make you very sick. Placebos can cure some people of some diseases. If you move to "harder" sciences you find that astronomers are studying stars that may have gone nova millions of years ago, and thus are not real (though the light is still travelling from there to here). When you start talking about the models used for sub-atomic physics you are in for another sort of problem. It may be convenient to think of electrons as little spheres which whiz around a sun-like mass of protons, but the limitations of that model soon become apparant. it may be that one should not think of electrons and protons as "things" at all. if they are not "things" then in what sense they are real is a very good question. I am curious as to whether any other group finds that the philosophy of sciece is not neutral enough for their liking. I have only found 2 groups which consistantly complain -- the creationists and the gung-ho ecologists who blame "scienceandtechnology" for everything. Who else has philosophical objections? Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
peters@cubsvax.UUCP (12/31/83)
In 2 words: Bo Ring.
{philabs,cmcl2!rocky2}!cubsvax!peters
(Peter S Shenkin; Dept of Biol Sci; Columbia Univ; NY, NY 10027; 212-280-5517)mark@utzoo.UUCP (mark bloore) (01/02/84)
in the recent arkansas "monkey trial", the judge hearing the case
ruled against the teaching of creationism in public schools, stating
that it was a thinly-veiled attempt to introduce christian fundamentalism.
the evidence presented included letters exchanged among creationist leaders
cautioning one another that they must conceal their religious motivation,
and suggesting ways of doing so. (science, 215:934-943, 19 feb 82)
i suggest that this proposal is a first step towards doing the same thing
at a higher academic level. by a great deal of quite laudably idealistic
talk about the need to separate science from particular philosophical
bents, it implies that science is currently carried on in a narrow-minded
fashion. it even states that there is prejudice among scientists against
certain world-views. all this should make the reader anxious to eliminate
this bias and injustice. but when it comes down to specifics, what biases
get mentioned? why, anti-religious ones (surprise!). one of the proposal's
stated goals is:
To restore science and all of scholarship to the condition of an
open-ended search for knowledge and understanding. The present
condition of science leaves open only the ends toward non-God,
impotent-God, or irrelevant-God.
note the very christian-sounding "God". i think that the ultimate aim
of this proposal is to make matters of christian faith acceptable in
science, and to get them taught at a university level. this would also
tend to introduce such matters into the public perception of science.
with this the public can have its science and its gods (or someone's God)
too, and attack those who would separate the two as unscientific,
rather than as anti-religious. this side-steps insistence on the
separation of church and state, while still bringing the church into
science and science teaching (the two are explicitly linked in the proposal).
and even if the battle is lost in academia, it may be won in the forum of
public opinion, which is, after all, where the votes are.
mARK bLOORE
univ of toronto
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!markrlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (01/04/84)
To restore science and all of scholarship to the condition of an open-ended search for knowledge and understanding. I thought that's exactly what science has been doing for some time now. The present condition of science leaves open only the ends toward non-God, impotent-God, or irrelevant-God. So, rather than accepting the conclusions science offers us about god, let's invent a new science that leaves open the notion of omnipotent god, and then we can rewrite everything science has accomplished thus far, in order to suit our pre-ordained conclusions. So much for logic and scientific method... -- Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
faustus@ucbvax.UUCP (01/05/84)
x You are missing an important point when you say that "logic makes some basic assumptions". Logic, in itself, makes no assumptions, it has axioms. The results you obtain are to be considered only in relation to your axioms, and how you apply the results and choose the axioms have nothing to do with the logical process. The same applies to sciences like physics -- you create axioms and build systems on them, but you are not making assumptions. And when you say that some physical statement is true, you are really saying that it follows from certain axioms, which are probably the correct (or the best) ones to make. No physicist, however, would say that some statement is "absolutely true", and I think the same holds true for biologists and other scientists -- they create axioms and form theories, but they never claim that something can absolutely be proven about the real world. As you point out, you can always take the position of the solipsist, but this is counter to the whole point of scientific thought, which is that the Fundamental Axiom Of Science: "Nature is regular", leads to a system that is useful. So you really can't say that the creationist viewpoint is absolutely worthless, because there is no way to make the scientific system foolproof. I don't believe, either, that any scientist who thinks about the philophical basis of his system would disagree. Although it is probably sort of useless to point this out to most people, it is important to know in the great arena of idealogical contention where the walls are, so to speak, or something like that... Wayne
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (01/05/84)
>from "Origins Research", Fall/Winter 1983
A Proposal to Eliminate the Deleterious Effects of Religious Beliefs
upon Science and Education
by Dr. Robert E. Kofahl
The following proposal was submitted by Dr. Kofahl for review and
criticism by the readers of "Origins Research".
The essence or the proposal is to redefine "science" such that it
becomes a philosophically neutral enterprise. Such a definition allows
persons of any belief system to participate in scientific endeavor without
fear of reprisal or discrimination.
During the past year Dr. Kofahl has lectured on university campuses
on this topic and has submitted the proposal to peer review. This version
represents his most recently adapted and highly evolved draft. Send your
comments to Dr. Robert Kofahl, Science Coordinator, Creation-Science
Research Center, P. O. Box 23195, San Diego CA 92123.
A. Summary
1. A correct definition of science is philosophically neutral, implies
no particular philosophical-religious faith or world view, and does
not require that the scientist hold any particular belief system.
2. Particularly since the time of Darwin many scientists and philosophers
have either implicitly of explicitly espoused definitions of science
which incorporate the philosophical world view of materialistic monism,
or at least have required thought and research in science to harmonize
with such a world view.
3. This metaphysical injection into the definition of science has in
effect automatically tended to bend science and science education
to a philosophical-religious end, i.e. the indoctrination and
regimentation of all students and practitioners of science and science
education (and most other scholarly disciplines) in accord with a
particular belief system.
4. To the extent that the above conditions exist, science and science
education obviously need to be reformed by achieving a general
agreement to restore the correct, philosophically neutral condition
of science.
5. The results of this reformation will be beneficial to science, to
individual persons involved in science, be they practicing scientists,
teachers, or students; to all of scholarship; and to society at large.
B. A Philosophically Neutral Definition of Science and its Implications
1. Definition: Science is the systematic extension (by intent,
methodology, and instrumentation) of human experience for the
purpose of learning more about the natural world and for the
critical testing and possible falsification of all hypotheses about
the natural world.
2. The assumptions basic to science
a. I am real.
b. The external world is real.
c. My natural senses give me a reasonably reliable perception of
the external world.
d. The natural world is lawful and reproducible and therefore worthy
systematic investigation.
e. The laws of logic are valid.
3. Logical corollaries drawn form the definition which define the proposal
a. The scientist is not required to hold to or reject any particular
religious-philosophical belief system.
b. The scientist is required to submit his methodology, data and
conclusions to critical review by his peers. Provided he does
this, criticism of his work by his peers on the basis of any
reference whatsoever to his personal belief system or lack of one
is ruled out.
c. The peer review system may not have any element of philosophical
bias.
d. Thus scientists (and also teachers, students and all scholars)
are to be judged on the basis of their performance, not at all on
the basis of a willingness to surrender their minds to somebody
else's belief system.
e. There is no requirement that all scientists must function under
the same set of paradigms.
f. There is no restriction on the sources of ideas and hypotheses
in science. Other scientists should have no concern about the
source of ideas which gave rise to one man's hypothesis, if it
deals with the reproducible empirical world and if it is open
to test by critic or doubter.
g. There is no requirement that the scientist assume:
1) That there is no teleology in the natural world.
2) That no divine intervention has ever occurred in the natural
world.
3) That every observable datum can be totally explained in terms
only of material cause and effect.
4) That no divine revelation provides valid information about the
natural world and that no hypothesis derived from biblical data
may be may rightly be entertained by a scientist.
5) That God does not exist and only the material world is real,
or at least that the scientist must function accordingly in
his laboratory, thus submitting to the proposition that his
personal faith has no relevance in his scientific endeavor.
h. A scientist may adopt or reject any of the above assumptions, as
he wishes, but that is a matter of his own personal faith, not of
science.
C. Goals
1. To restore science and all of scholarship to the condition of an
open-ended search for knowledge and understanding. The present
condition of science leaves open only the ends toward non-God,
impotent-God, or irrelevant-God.
2. To alleviate the animosity which exists in scientific and scholarly
circles toward anybody who choses faith in materialistic processes.
3. To bring an end to discrimination, penalties, and injuries leveled
against those who reject the current reigning philosophical-religious
viewpoint in science, education and all areas of scholarship.
4. To assure that all scientists, teacher and students are judged on the
basis of performance, with no discrimination, preference or penalties
assessed on the basis of belief systems.
5. To make available to the scientific and other scholarly pursuits a
larger and more diverse pool of potential participants.
6. Thus to elevate the intellectual challenge and quality of all scholarly
enterprises.
7. Through achieving the above goals, to alter the erroneous public
perception of science as being anti-God of anti-religious.
D. The Solution
1. The fundamental requirement is the achievement of a consensus among
practitioners in science, education and other areas of scholarship
which accepts a philosophically neutral definition of science and
also the logical corollaries which we have drawn therefrom.
2. Once this consensus is achieved, the goals will in time be attained
automatically.
September 16, 1983
The address of "Origins Research" is P. O. Box 203, Goleta CA 93116.
Paul Dubucemma@uw-june (Joe Pfeiffer) (01/06/84)
2. The assumptions basic to science
d. The natural world is lawful and reproducible and therefore worthy
systematic investigation.
e. The laws of logic are valid.
3. Logical corollaries drawn form the definition which define the proposal
g. There is no requirement that the scientist assume:
2) That no divine intervention has ever occurred in the natural
world.
3) That every observable datum can be totally explained in terms
only of material cause and effect.
5) That God does not exist and only the material world is real,
or at least that the scientist must function accordingly in
his laboratory, thus submitting to the proposition that his
personal faith has no relevance in his scientific endeavor.
-------------
To precisely the extent that divine intervention may have occurred in
the past, or may occur in the future, the behavior of the physical
world is not reproducible. As the reproducibility of this behavior is,
indeed, required for scientific endeavor, we must assume the absence of
divine intervention. When physical behavior seems to occur which does
not follow these norms, we may point that out and retire to the
sidelines allowing the theologians and philosophers to hash out what is
going on (or we may remain in the fray, but not as scientists). Two
examples that seem to fit here are the Shroud of Turin and Saint
Januarius' blood.
Come on, guys. Even if the creationists are right, what they are
talking about is not biology. Rather than waste time with disputes on
whether it should be taught in biology classes, everybody concerned
would benefit from having a unit on the difference between science and
reality, and the nature of scientific hypothesis, added to the
curriculum.
-Joe P.laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (01/07/84)
Laura Creighton, the addled philosopher here. :-) What Steve says is very true. Moreover, I am prepared to prove it. for those of you who are reading this in net.religion, Russell Anderson has presented a lovely intorduction to the Patristic period and has begun to show how Christianity has been influenced by Greek philosophy. I am going to do one further and discuss how more modern philosophy has influenced both science and religion. What prompted me to do this was the Fundamental statements in the article "can Creationists contribute to Science". they are pretty good postulates to believe in, but you don't have to. In particular, the British Empiricists *didn't* believe in them. They got an awful lot of science done. Therefore, these postulates do not adequately describe science. Now these postulates can be traced back to Descartes. (Actually you can trace them further, but I want to start with Descartes so that is where I am going to start). Then I am going to present an Empirical viewpoint. Finally I am going to present Hegel (a rationalist) an Kierkegaard (and existentialist). Now it is quite possible to spend all of your life discussing, analysing and thinking about any of these men, so when I say "I am going to present" what I really mean is that I am going to give a capsul summary. I will tell you where i got what I am saying so that you can go look this up. The fundamental problem (the way I see it anyway) is most clearly seen in the conflict between Hegel's "Truth is the Whole" and Kierkegaard's "Truth is Subjectivity". However, most people I know don't even know who Kierkegaard and Hegel were, so I am going to have to present Descartes and Hume (he's a British Empiricist) or Berkeley (he's another British Empiricist, and he pronounces his name "Barkly" *not* like the place where 4.1 bsd comes from) so that these people can understand what these people mean. So expect one article on Descartes, one on Hume and/or Berkeley and either one on Hegel and one of Kierkegaard or, more likely, one on both. Those of you who know who these people are probably know what I am going to say as well. You can either use your 'n' key, or read them and add to them, or read them and *don't* add to them, or pick nits. I don't care. For those of you that are still interested: WHERE. I am getting out of net.physics. (Loud cheer from the people who wish I were already out -- I hear it now). I am also getting out of net.misc. Steve, you are going to have to read it in net.philosophy or net.religion if you are interested, because I am leaving it both places. Posting it to net.misc will not save me from the nit-pickers -- they follow me wherever I go. For those of you who are reading this in net.religion -- yes, I am going to post Descartes' proof for the existance of God, be patient, it has been a long week and I've been busy. Lastly, there is a subset of you who think that philosophy has nothing to do with religion and that I should get out of net.religion as well. I am attempting to post something which should change your mind about this, but I have tried changing people's minds in net.religion before and I know that it doesn't work all that well. Or at any rate, that I am not very good at it. Will those of you who morally obligated to send me mail explaining to me that philosophy has nothing to do with religion and so I should stop posting this swill to net.religion please use a descriptive Subject: line in your mail? That way I can delete all of those messages without bothering to read them. Don't expect a reply. Hmm. While I am at it, the same goes for those who want to call me a Satanist. you can do that in the Subject: line as well. Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
stevesu@azure.UUCP (Steve Summit) (01/10/84)
When I read the "Proposal to Eliminate the Deleterious Effects of
Religious Beliefs upon Science and Education," I somehow missed
the title and the word "Creationists" therein, and found the
article quite reasonable indeed. (I didn't scrutinize it
terribly carefully, and the objections several people have raised
about the incompatibility of repeatability and divine
intervention are valid.) However, some of the other suggestions
in the article are terribly important, and may be missed if you
assume a knee-jerk attitude against "those creationists."
Laura asks who except the creationists and the ecologists "finds
that the philosophy of science is not neutral enough for their
liking." I do. I don't have time right now to write a long
essay, and I'm not at all interested in getting in a flaming,
nit-picking discussion with the flaming nit-pickers out there.
I'll give this a try: bear in mind that it is fairly informal and
subjective.
Science is a religion. It is considerably more detached and
rational than conventional religions, but blind faith in the
value of rationality is a religion, too. Science demands faith
just as religion does. You have to have faith in the veracity of
logic. You have to have faith in the mechanism of cause and
effect. You have to have faith that observed regularities will
repeat themselves. You have to have faith in the existence of
the world around around you and your perceptions of it.
In fact, the aforementioned "Proposal" is considerably less
neutral and skeptical than it could be in that it assumes most of
these faiths. I am uncomfortable with some of its "assumptions
basic to science" (section B.2) such as "The natural world is
lawful and reproducible" and "The laws of logic are valid."
Please do not immediately dismiss me as an addled philosopher.
Of course, we take most of these things for granted today. That
is, in fact, a cultural phenomenon. In times past, the existence
of God was universally taken for granted. Is there any
fundamental difference? There are primitive tribes today which
are utterly incapable of dealing with "obvious" concepts such as
models and regularity. They refuse to identify a picture of an
elephant as an elephant. If you point out that it has rained
every day this week and that it is cloudy and windy today, they
will not even venture a guess as to whether it will rain today.
They are not stupid, or wrong. Their enculturated philosophy is
just different.
I am not saying that we should not take cause and effect for
granted, and I am not saying that we should take God for granted.
I am merely pointing out that it is just as impossible to prove
conclusively the existence of either of them.
You cannot prove anything without some fundamental postulates,
and they are always going to be subject to doubt. You are going
to have to have implicit faith in your postulates, to believe in
them just as you might believe in God. Even if your proof
contains no explicit postulates, it is implicitly bound by the
nature of its being a proof to require the implicit acceptance of
logic, and probably of cause and effect as well.
I am not arguing against science. Science (and technology) have
rather unquestionably done us some good. Blind faith in them,
however, is just as dangerous as blind faith in God. There is no
question in my mind that the current "implicitly or explicitly
espoused definitions of science" have a major effect on our world
view. Non-scientific societies may not believe as strongly in
rationality and the unemotional application of technology as we
do. Without them, they probably cannot discover concepts such as
nuclear physics. They also would not consider achieving a
desired result, like ending a war, with a simpleminded cause like
dropping a technological fruit, the atomic bomb, on a couple of
cities full of people, especially without exhausting every other
alternative. (Yes, there have always been wars. I think the
achievement of nuclear warfare is both quantitatively and
qualitatively different. I think the current nuclear dilemma
confirms this.)
Science can never stand completely apart from society and its
inherent foibles and irrationalities. The "Proposal" is in fact
deficient in this regard as well. No matter how neutral, how
detached scientific investigation is, the very subjects it
chooses to investigate are influenced by, and have an impact
upon, the culture in which the investigation is carried out. I
am personally offended that anyone could even conceive of the
concept of a computer achieving human-like intelligence, let
alone going out and trying to implement it.
Life cannot be reduced to an equation, to be manipulated with
cool, detached rationality. The only thing you can truly do with
it is appreciate it, and any attempts to analyze or explain it
must always be taken with a grain of salt. After all, you really
can't prove that God didn't create the heaven and the earth (he
could have faked the contradicting evidence) and you can't even
prove you're not dreaming.
What am I trying to get at here? I should point out that I do
not wholly believe in either the conventional explanations of
creation or evolution. The book of Genesis is a bit too
simpleminded and magical, but the Origin of the Species is too
detached and scientific to account for the beauty and splendor of
the world we live in.
I'm going to try to wind this down into some sort of conclusion.
At the risk of sounding like the Californian I am, be mellow.
Don't take anything too seriously. Science and technology can
help you out, and so can religion. There's some stuff in the
Bible about loving your fellow man that we could use more of
today. Neither science nor religion will help you much if you're
marooned on a desert island in search of food, or marooned in a
sea of people in search of love. You need some practical,
personal (intuitive, emotional) skills as well.
I'm sorry for the rambling style of this article. I could (and
should) write an essay about each of these paragraphs, but this
is too long for net.misc already. I've thrown in a lot of my
half-baked ideas without adequate explanation. I'd be interested
in carrying on this discussion, particularly in a calm and
friendly manner. (Unfortunately, I don't subscribe to
net.religion or net.philosophy because, last time I looked, they
were bogged down in nit-picking and definitions and looked
positively rabid.) What happened to the net.origins that got
proposed in net.physics a while back? It looked like it could be
interesting.
Good night,
Steve Summit
tektronix!tekmdp!stevesuamigo2@ihuxq.UUCP (01/24/84)
Larry Bickford says: >> I am appalled at the cavalier attitude of summarily >> dismissing creationism and its supporters into the >> "pseudo-science" category. I seriously doubt that more than >> a few on this network have even bothered to read any of the >> material published on the *scientific* evidence for >> creation. I have found a few who are willing to consider >> evidence itself, but by far the vast majority who believe in >> evolution have also believed the straw man that >> evolutionists have created from the Genesis account and then >> ridiculed. [One paragraph omitted] >> On the question of "hypotheses be falsifiable from data >> obtained in a reproducible manner and the statement that it >> is permissible to explain some data by divine intervention": >> one of the contributors on this subject and I have exchanged >> on what I refer to as "compact" vs. "continuous" divine >> intervention. I define "compact" to mean that in the >> prehistoric past (think about it - history only goes back >> about 4000-6000 years), there were processes in operation >> that are no longer in operation - creative processes, used >> to cause things to exist. They ceased at a point in time, >> being replaced by (or perhaps leaving) sustaining processes. >> The latter are observable and repeatable; the former are >> neither. Further, since the former are no longer in >> operation, a new phenomena (e.g., my desk suddenly going >> from "creative" [read: chaotic] to tidy) would not be >> explainable by "divine intervention" (save the conclusion >> after repeated observation that no natural process could >> account for it), whereas "continuous" intervention would >> definitely allow such an explanation. >> >> A model based on continuous intervention would be virtually >> impossible to work with. However, one based on compact >> intervention is fully viable, basically stating that the >> world was in a certain condition at a certain point in time, >> and that all has proceeded since then. We can study what is, >> draw conclusions and make prognoses from it. What more does >> science ask? I do not feel that evolutionists have a "cavalier attitude in summarily dismissing creationism and its supporters into the `pseudo-science' category." I, for one, have done extensive reading in the works of Henry Morris, R. L. Wysong, Duane Gish, et al. And I do recognize the principal reasons for the creationists' attitude. Simply put, the core of the theory of scientific creationism is that the word of God has got to be true. Everything in human experience must be explained in such a way that it does not contradict the Bible. Scientific observations are not more privileged than any other sort of experience. If they do not seem to conform, then either they are illusions or else they are erroneously interpreted. If they are erroneously interpreted, it may be because Satan has caused the mistake as part of his strategy to damn mankind forever. The struggle for correct interpretations of human observations, according to many creationists, is no less than the struggle between God and the Devil for the souls of humanity. (See, for example, Morris, "The Troubled Waters of Evolution", pp. 74-75.) I don't know why Larry says "the vast majority who believe in evolution have also believed the straw man that evolutionists have created from the Genesis account and then ridiculed." Most scientific creationists--certainly the most vocal ones--do start off by saying that the Genesis account is a literal and faithful account of origins of the universe, the earth, plants and animals, and people. Remember that, in order to become a member of the Institute for Creation Research, one must sign an oath saying that one believes implicitly and without reservation the literal truth of the Bible. As Henry Morris put it: The real truth of the matter is that the Bible is indeed verbally inspired and literally true throughout. Whenever it deals with scientific or historical matters of fact, it means exactly what it says and is completely accurate. Whenever figures of speech are used, their meaning is always evident in context, just as in other books. There is no scientific fallacy in the Bible at all. "Science" is *knowledge*, and the Bible is a book of true and factual knowledge throughout, on every subject with which it deals. The Bible *is* a book of science. [Italics in original.] --Morris, "Many Infallible Proofs", p. 229. Creationists, in their "scientific" arguments, tend towards double-talk, mis-quotation, mis-representation, and outright fraud. A good example of this is their well-known "evolution defies the second law of thermodynamics" argument. Central to their reasoning is the notion that "uphill" processes cannot occur naturally. First, they have exaggerated the extent to which evolution is an uphill process, and secondly, they misinterpret the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics refers specifically to closed systems, but the earth's bioshere is not a closed system, since it is constantly receiving energy from the sun. Localized entropy reduction occurs all the time in nature. Indeed, it happens every time a snowflake is formed. Despite their remarkably symmetrical and highly organized structures, each snowflake forms spontaniously and naturally from a completely disorganized collection of airborne molecules. Surely the creationists do not mean to argue that since entropy is a universal law, snowflake creation is impossible. To be sure, scientists do not completely understand either the genesis of snowflakes or the evolutionary process, but a declaration that either is impossible does not follow from the second law of thermodynamics. About Larry's thesis of "compact divine intervention", if you have a non-reproducible process, then you can use it to explain almost anything. Indeed, by Occam's Razor (which is what the Spanish Barber uses) alone, divine intervention is the simplest expalnation for any process. Scientific creationism is an evangelical Christian movement of fundamentalist ministries dedicated not to the advancement of science but to the advancemanet of Biblical inerrancy often at the expense of science. The discourse of scientific creationism is an elaborate but confusing system of apologetics and polemics. It is designed to both defend Biblical "truths" and to undermine any scientific facts and theories that contradict creationist interpretations of Scripture. In some cases, Morris and his colleagues use ad hominem polemics to attack evolution, as when Albert Johnson claimed that evolution leads "to sensuality, carnalism, Bolshevism, and the Red Flag"; more often, they resort to obfuscation. John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs Naperville, IL (312) 979-7293 ihnp4!ihuxq!amigo2
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (01/28/84)
>> I am appalled at the cavalier attitude of summarily >> dismissing creationism and its supporters into the >> "pseudo-science" category. I seriously doubt that more than >> a few on this network have even bothered to read any of the >> material published on the *scientific* evidence for >> creation. I have found a few who are willing to consider >> evidence itself, but by far the vast majority who believe in >> evolution have also believed the straw man that >> evolutionists have created from the Genesis account and then >> ridiculed. I think that supporters of evolution ought to read some creationist books also, but not for the reasons I assume Larry Bickford would. To quote Douglas J. Futuyama, in "Science on Trial" (Pantheon, 1983), p. 228: "Although I am averse to supporting the creationist cause financially by buying their publications, I must recommend some creationist literature as the surest antidote to believing the creationist line. Many publications of Creation-Life Publishers, P.O. Box 15666, San Diego, California 92115 will do nicely." I have followed Futuyama's advice and am glad I did. Nothing can give one a better idea of the depths of intellectual dishonesty that the major writers on creationism are willing to probe than a careful reading of some of their books. Furthermore, if you ever have occasion to debate a creationist, it would be well if you were thoroughly familiar with their arguments. Recent experience has shown that creationists can easily be defeated in public debates, provided that the debater on the other side is well prepared. As for Larry's quote from Professor Stephen Jay Gould, if he will write to Professor Gould and get a statement from him declaring that the quote constitutes support for the creationist cause, then I will be impressed. Otherwise, I will draw my own conclusions. -- Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {ihnp4,kpno,ctvax}!ut-sally!utastro!bill (uucp) utastro!bill@ut-ngp (ARPANET)