bch@unc.UUCP (12/03/83)
Larry Bickford has begun a rather interesting discussion of creationist thinking vs. evolutionary theory. It contains a number of misunderstandings (if not downright misstatements) about the nature of evolutionary theory and the nature of science. Hopefully this is a meaningful response: >>Perhaps it would be best to start if we could define the areas under >>discussion, as models for correlating (and even predicting) existing >>data. If our understandings differ here, further discussion is hot air >>on both sides. (Flame now or hold your peace.) Believe me, our understandings are going to differ here, but that does not make further discussion so much "hot air." The creationist view of evolutionary theory, if represented accurately by Larry's view, is somewhat of an oversimplification which, in addition, extends evolu- tionary theory far beyond its intended domain of explanation. This is important in that it puts words into the mouths of evolutionary theorists that just aren't there. >>Recall that we are dealing with *scientific* models, that meet their >>test in hard evidence, not with *religious* models. Agreed --- and we need to hold creationists to this. If we can show that the creationist model is unscientific (not amienable to scientific analysis) then we have invalidated it as a competing scientific theory, agreed? >>The evolutionary model ("Evolution") "attempts to explain the origin, >>development, and meaning of all things in terms of natural laws and >>processes which operate today as they have in the past. No extraneous >>processes, requiring the special activity of an external agent, or >>Creator, are permitted. The universe, in all its aspects, evolves itself >>into higher levels of order (particles to people) by means of its innate >>properties." (H.M.Morris, "Scientific Creationism," p.10) I'm glad you footnoted this. Don't you think it a little peculiar to use a creationist's definition of the evolutionary model? At any rate, evolutionary theory certainly does not attempt to explain the "origin, development and meaning of all things." A better approximation might that it attempts to explain changes in biological forms over time. Evolutionary theory is not cosmology. There is no attempt to explain the origins of planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc. Nor does evolution theory propose direction from lower to higher-order forms (this is a common misunderstanding, even among those who subscribe to it,) it merely endeavors to explain change. Finally, extraneous processes to the domain of explanation certain are allowed. Geologic and natural cataclysms play an important part in evolutionary theory. Sorry, Larry, you can't make up your own version of evolution and expect the rest of us to defend it against your attacks. >>"The creation model ("Creation") postulates a period of special creation >>in the beginning, during which all the basic laws and categories of >>nature, including the major kinds of plants and animals, as well as man, >>were brought into existence by special creative and integrative >>processes which are no longer in operation. Once the creation was >>finished, these processes of *creation* were replaced by processes of >>*conservation*, which were designed by the Creator to sustain and >>maintain the basic systems He had created. In addition, ... the creation >>model proposes a basic principle of disintegration now at work in nature >>(since any change in a *perfect* primeval creation must be in the >>direction of imperfection). Also ... [it includes] post-creation global >>catastrophism." (Morris, op.cit., p.12) I have to accept this, as I assume you know what you are talking about. Note that there are subtle differences between this view of creationist theory and the more traditional view. G-d has fallen by the wayside to be replaced by the more ecumenical Creator, and the Genesis portrayal of creation has been replaced by a somewhat smaller scale of explanation. This gives rise to differing models of *creationist* theory, which is definitely an improvement. >>I have noted to my correspondents one of the bases upon which evolution >>rests, namely the doctrine of UNIFORMITARIANISM: >> "...the Scottish geologist, James Hutton, ... maintained that >> *the present is the key to the past* and that, given sufficient >> time, processes now at work could account for all the geologic >> features of the Globe. This philosophy, which came to be known >> as the doctrine of UNIFORMITARIANISM, demands an immensity of >> time ..." >> (Carl O. Dunbar, "Historical Geology" 2nd Ed. 1960, p18, >> cited in Morris, op. cit., p.92) >>The alternative idea is CATASTROPHISM, theorizing that the features of >>the earth were formed rapidly in a relatively short period of time. The >>predominant thought on the catastrophe is a world-wide flood, hence the >>term "Flood Geology" is used by both proponents and opponents. The difference between these two is a "straw man" which I can't accept. While the notion of a world-wide flood is certainly up for debate, the notion of the demise of the dinosaurs being in part contributed to by a global catastrophe is a current topic of much discussion by evolutionary thinkers as well. Fortunately, meteors, asteroids and such tend to leave hard evidence of their existence behind, while your Creator continues to hide.... >>One of my correspondents (who does not share my views on origins) wrote: >> "One of the many goals of science is to obtain a consistent >> understanding of the physical and biological worlds while >> avoiding any unnecessary assumptions." >>I agree. Test both models, and see which needs fewer "explanations" >>(i.e., secondary assumptions). Where shall we start? Larry follows with the usual multi-pronged attack on evolutionary theory which I am sure will be expounded upon at length by later articles. For starters, however, I think we need to agree upon the domain covered evolutionary theory and the difference between scientific and religious explanation. I have attempted to correct some misapprehensions of evolutionary theory in the preceeding paragraphs and would like to deal with the subject of scientific vs. religious thought here. Science, and scientific thought, are something more than a body of literature and theory that attempt to explain the universe as we know it under a certain set of assumptions. Were it only that, then I would have to agree that there is little difference between "science" as we know it and "religion." This is what creationists would have us believe, but it is simply untrue. The critical difference between religion and science, it seems to me is that science proscribes limitations on the kind of assumptions upon which it is based while religion does not. Specifically, to be admitted as a scientific assumption or paradigm a proposition must be not only testable, but *falsifiable.* That is to say, any scien- tific proposition must, in its fullest form, contain conditions wherein it can be rejected as a valid assumption or theory. Falsifiability is not an arbitrary restriction. It is critical to achieving an ever-growing understanding of the way the universe operates, critical to the continuing growth of the body of scientific thought. If we allow theoretical 'escape hatches' for unexplained phenomena then we limit scientific growth by reason of inertia. Admittance of an unfalsifiable hypotheses such as, "The Creator did it during a special period of creation" allows no further research into origins and development of biological forms. It follow from this that no scientific theory can ever be "proven." This is, hopefully, a positive statement and is as it should be. We can only "disprove" an assumption or an hypothesis by testing it against reality and finding contradictions which meet the criterion of falsifiability. We can then adopt a competing theory, or a revisionist theory which better explains what we have found under the condition that it, too, may someday be found false. Creationist theory is, in this context, a non-science in that it's central tenant is not scientifically falsifiable. If we have an intelligent creator that can do *anything,* then there is no logical way to disprove its existance (or even test for some confirmation for that matter.) Pointing out areas where evolutionary theory does not explain evidence, or even pointing out areas where evolu- tionary theory is contradicted by evidence does not admit creationism as a valid scientific theory, though it does point out further areas for scientific research. To cast a practical light on this, it is incumbent upon the proponents of a particular scientific view to demonstrate a program of research whereby it is possible to find evidence which contradicts the theory. For evolution, the creationists have done a passable job of showing the falsifiability of evolutionary theory. It is now incumbent upon them to devise a research program for creationist theory, something I suspect which will not be forthcoming. I have tried to cover a large body of philosophical thought in a very few paragraphs here, and have made any number of oversimplifications and omissions for purposes of brevity. I trust, however, that this will shed some "light" on the nature of evolutionary vs. creationist thinking and engender further discussion. -- Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill decvax!duke!mcnc!unc!bch
eich@uiuccsb.UUCP (12/04/83)
#R:qubix:-67900:uiuccsb:11900019:000:505 uiuccsb!eich Dec 4 01:58:00 1983 It's interesting to note that, Velikhovsky notwithstanding, Catastrophism has become much more in vogue theoretically. Theories concerning the extinction of the dinosaurs (by meteor strike) and punctuated evolution (mutations possibly caused by nearby super-novae) are examples. Science marches on, yes, but there is an (slight) element of intellectual fashion in the degree to which catastrophist vs uniform theories are devised; it's not all Occam's razor applied to an infinite number of postulates.
stekas@hou2g.UUCP (12/05/83)
The one necessary requirement for convincing others of
the "rationality of 'scientific' creationism" is an
audience who already accepts Genisis as interpreted by
American Bible-belt "theologians".
So please confine your narrow minded, unscientific, and
irrational hokum to bumper stickers and net.religion.
Thank-you,
Jimdnc@dartvax.UUCP (David Crespo) (12/07/83)
Down with articles on creationism. lLet's get back to physcs, and forget these outdated wwishywashy goodytwo shoes preachers sons and their fear of the animal inthem. whatever it is, save it for net.creationism or net.philosophy, or net.darwin or wherever it belongs. net.biology, since that reallyy is ewhere it belongs, despite what htey sayabout bigbangs and randomness. I want my unified field, thank you. flames are a high, ..... dnc with a toungue in cheek.
lab@qubix.UUCP (Larry Bickford) (12/08/83)
(Due to length of article, I won't try to fit everything in here. May it
be a springboard for rational discussion that shall find its home in a
single newsgroup.)
Perhaps it would be best to start if we could define the areas under
discussion, as models for correlating (and even predicting) existing
data. If our understandings differ here, further discussion is hot air
on both sides. (Flame now or hold your peace.)
Recall that we are dealing with *scientific* models, that meet their
test in hard evidence, not with *religious* models.
Note here to distinguish "micro-evolution" (variations with kinds, known
to exist) from "macro-evolution" (change from kind to kind, purely
speculative). Too many point to micro-evolution to justify macro-evolution.
When the term "evolution" is used, "macro-evolution" is intended.
The evolutionary model ("Evolution") "attempts to explain the origin,
development, and meaning of all things in terms of natural laws and
processes which operate today as they have in the past. No extraneous
processes, requiring the special activity of an external agent, or
Creator, are permitted. The universe, in all its aspects, evolves itself
into higher levels of order (particles to people) by means of its innate
properties." (H.M.Morris, "Scientific Creationism," p.10)
"The creation model ("Creation") postulates a period of special creation
in the beginning, during which all the basic laws and categories of
nature, including the major kinds of plants and animals, as well as man,
were brought into existence by special creative and integrative
processes which are no longer in operation. Once the creation was
finished, these processes of *creation* were replaced by processes of
*conservation*, which were designed by the Creator to sustain and
maintain the basic systems He had created. In addition, ... the creation
model proposes a basic principle of disintegration now at work in nature
(since any change in a *perfect* primeval creation must be in the
direction of imperfection). Also ... [it includes] post-creation global
catastrophism." (Morris, op.cit., p.12)
I have noted to my correspondents one of the bases upon which evolution
rests, namely the doctrine of UNIFORMITARIANISM:
"...the Scottish geologist, James Hutton, ... maintained that
*the present is the key to the past* and that, given sufficient
time, processes now at work could account for all the geologic
features of the Globe. This philosophy, which came to be known
as the doctrine of UNIFORMITARIANISM, demands an immensity of
time ..."
(Carl O. Dunbar, "Historical Geology" 2nd Ed. 1960, p18,
cited in Morris, op. cit., p.92)
The alternative idea is CATASTROPHISM, theorizing that the features of
the earth were formed rapidly in a relatively short period of time. The
predominant thought on the catastrophe is a world-wide flood, hence the
term "Flood Geology" is used by both proponents and opponents.
One of my correspondents (who does not share my views on origins) wrote:
"One of the many goals of science is to obtain a consistent
understanding of the physical and biological worlds while
avoiding any unnecessary assumptions."
I agree. Test both models, and see which needs fewer "explanations"
(i.e., secondary assumptions). Where shall we start?
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Eyes and Wings (multiple independent evolutions)
Gaps in the Taxonomic Tree (there shouldn't be any at any level)
Living fossils (tuatara, coelacanth, etc.)
Preservation of soft-tissue forms in fossils
Fossils, period.
"Overthrusts"
Chromosome count in plants and animals
...
This article is long enough, and I hope sufficient to (as the above-
noted correspondent put it) "generate light instead of heat."
Larry Bickford, {amd70,ittvax}!qubix!lab
{ihnp4,ucbvax,decvax}!decwrl!qubix!lab
decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA