tynor@uiucuxc.UUCP (03/04/84)
#N:uiucuxc:3900054:000:4077
uiucuxc!tynor Mar 3 11:32:00 1984
In Miller's latest submission, he makes the ridiculous claim
that evolution is not falsifiable but that creationism is. He basically
fails to support this and claim and here we will attempt to show that in
fact the reverse of his argument is true.
First, a few points about Miller's favorite topic, the Paluxy
tracks. In our recent personal encounter, Ray showed us pictures of
these tracks. The footprint he showed us was very large, he said
about the length of a pushbroom head (about 18 inches long!). We have
not seen this point raised on the net. How would Mr. Miller account
for their extreme size? If there truly were such giants in the past,
where are their skeletal remains? Another problem for creationists
with the Paluxy tracks is how they fit into the rest of their "model",
specifically the catastrophic flood. John D. Morris, in a pamphlet
published by the ICR, admits that this is a problem:
"The main problem of geologic origin for biblical
catastrophists stems from the fact that underlying the
Paluxy River basin is nearly eighty-five hundred feet of
sedimentary rock. According to the catastrophic model, this
must all have been laid down by the flood of Noah's day. The
problem is how could man and dinosaurs witness such massive
deposition at the beginning stages of the flood and survive
long enough to leave their prints so high in the geologic
column?"
Getting back to our stated purpose, Creationism is *not*
falsifiable. Mr. Miller seems to think that simply because his
particular view (or model) of creation is falsifiable, that the entire
creation concept is falsifiable. This is clearly not the case. The
creation model demands a supernatural creator who operates (or operated)
outside of the naturalistic universe. Therefore it could create in any
manner imaginable. The "scientific creationist" can always rely on the
escapist phrase: "Well, that's the way the creator created it..." In
order to disprove creation, one must disprove god. Philosophers have
struggled with this question for centuries. If there is anything that
philosophy has shown, it is that the existence or non-existance of god
cannot be proven.
Before we discuss why we believe that evolution *is* falsifiable,
we would like to discuss the importance of falsifiabilty to the
scientific method. Phillip Kitcher, in his book 'Abusing Science',
maintains that no scientific theory is falsifiable, and that this is not
and important test of science. We agree only to the extent that science
attempts to fit all data into the current paradigm (see Thomas Kuhn).
However, as the amount of seemingly contradictory data increases,
scientists begin to doubt the current paradigm and begin to search for
alternatives. When an elegant and more encompassing theory is found
the old theory can be considered falsified. For example, Relativity
can be thought to have falsified Newtonian Mechanics.
Conceivably, evidence might be found that would seriously
contradict evolutionary theory (ie. reliable fossil evidence grossly
out of order or evidence that there is insufficient time for evolution
to occur (in other words, many of the standard creationist arguments)).
However, at this time, evolution is well supported and not in a
scientific crisis. To be sure, the exact mechanism of evolution is
hotly debated, but there is no accepted evidence contradictory to the
basic concept of evolution. Creationists would argue that their
evidence has been unfairly ignored by the scientific community. We
maintain that if their arguments have any merit, they will be accepted
by scientists even if this necessitates the search for a new paradigm.
In the excedingly remote possibility that this happens, scientists
will not be forced to accept creationism. Other far simpler paradigms
are available, eg. panspermia. See "Re: Creationism and Occam's Razor."
Steve Tynor
Ray Mooney
ihnp4!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!tynor
ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!rmooney
University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana