[net.religion] Creation vs. Evolution

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,
                                 Jim

dnc@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