tynor@uiucuxc.UUCP (03/10/84)
#N:uiucuxc:36200004:000:5180 uiucuxc!tynor Mar 9 15:08:00 1984 A. Ray Miller Creation/Evolution followups: >> Last week I made the comment that by and large, creatioists >> and evolutions both predict the same general ordering of the fossils >> in the local columns (although for totally different reasons). >> But in there *very next note*, Steve harps on the "order of the >> fossil record". Here, A.Ray misunderstands the context in which this was presented. It was mentioned as a possible way one might falsify evolution, and had nothing to do with creationism. We are well aware of the creationists "model" in this regard. >> On a number of occasions they've badly distorted my position in >> our verbal conversation, e.g., animal distribution. We deny that we have at all distorted Mr. Miller's position. A.Ray did not give us an acceptable creationist explanation for the geographic distribution problem. He ended this argument with something like "Well, that's a problem for creationism, but evolution has problems too." Has he come up with a solution in the mean time. If so, what is it? >> Next they quote Dr. John Morris (without giving the reference) >> about sediment deposition beneath the Paluxy tracks, implying that >> creationists have some sort of unsolved paradox. Our point in including this and the enormous size of the footprints was merely to raise a couple of problems with the Paluxy tracks that have not yet surfaced on the net. We were aware of Morris's reply and found it wanting. We thought that we would allow others more interested in technical issues to follow it up. We find it unproductive to discuss the technical details of certain creationist arguments. We believe that the problem lies at a much deeper level: We cannot allow God into science. Many of the specific claims made by Creationists are testable and may be discussed scientifically. However, the "theory" they propose to explain them requires supernatural intervention, and is therefore unscientific. We have been in recent communication with Dr. Kofahl of the Creation-Science Research Center and even he has stated that we cannot allow supernatural elements into our scientific theories because they are untestable. In his last letter, Dr. Kofahl mantains that the supernatural can be included in scientific 'paradigms', but not scientific theories. We find this problematic since it leaves him with no scientific theory for origins. Also, why should there be a distinction on this point? A scientific paradigm descibes the theories underneath it. If the theory cannot contain supernatural elements, why should the paradigm? We are in communication with him on this point at this time. >> What can I say? I disagree with their definition. >> They said I have "avoided" that issue and ask "are we to assume that he >> has no reply?" Now this is somewhat frustrating in that *every single >> time* I have responded to their notes on the net I have mentioned this >> very topic. Sorry A. Ray, you have not given us a reply. We base our defining arguement on Occam's Razor and other accepted principles in science, you on the other hand just say you disagree but give no arguements. What you can tell us is why Occams Razor is not, in your opinion, part of science, or how we have misapplied it in the case of creationism. Also, tell us why the evidence you propose demands a creator and why simpler explanations such as panspermia, are "silly". We, also, are frustrated. You claim to have dealt with these questions earlier. You have done nothing but handwave. Mr. Miller insists on harking on technical details such as the Paluxy River tracks and refuses to confront the deeper issues which would invalidate his entire "model". We feel that he, and other creationists, should attempt to convince paleontologists, geoligists, bioligists, and astronomers of their evidence instead of trying to legislate their ideas into legitimacy. It seems almost pointless to discuss technical issues with creationists, since they attack a wide range of scientific theories, virtually the whole of science, and one person can hardly do a decent job of defense. A. Ray accuses every critic of being unfamiliar with creationist arguements thereby claiming they are unfit opponents. We would claim that A. Ray is not familiar enough with all the theories he attacks, no man could be since they are too complex and too many in number. Our point remains. Creationists should be spending their time attempting to convince the scientists who are most familiar with their field. Only they can truly make an informed judgement. Should the creationists convince the scientific community of the validity of the Paluxy River tracks, scientists will have a great deal to considerr. But they will *never* be forced to accept a supernatural creator. It's just not allowed in science. Ray Mooney Steve Tynor ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!rmooney ihnp4!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!tynor University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana