lab@qubix.UUCP (Larry Bickford) (02/03/84)
[If this followup seems delayed, it is because a lot of the news didn't
make it to qubix (and a few other places). I am indebted to those who
forwarded copies of articles to me.]
The author I quoted in my previous article indeed is Stephen J. Gould,
from his "This View of Life" column in "Natural History" June-July '77,
May '77, and June-July '76 respectively. The purpose is to underscore a
key principle in scientific creation:
Apart from the presumption of evolution, what evidence is there that the
transitions claimed by the evolutionists ever happened?
Contention (for which Gould's comments prove most helpful): if it exists,
the fossils don't provide it. You may have A and B, but you have *no*
evidence to tie A and B together -- unless you presume evolution is true.
Gradualism could be supported by evidence (if it existed). Punctuated
equilibrium simply dismisses the lack of it.
John Hobson provided the example, which I would like him to show:
"[evolution] demands that [two extant organisms] share a common ancestor
-- which in the case of the shark and the whale was a primitive fish."
Simple request: said primitive fish, and any evidence of it becoming
either a shark or whale.
As has been worn to death in the past, John ties scientific creation to
religious beliefs. Once more, I make the point that scientific creation
has to stand on the merits of scientific evidence, without stipulating
that any particular religious material is accurate. Although I am not
aware of any creation scientists who are not Christian, being a
Christian is not a prerequisite to being a creation scientist. The test
is the *evidence*.
Another worn-to-death argument is that "divine intervention" could
account for anything. In the case for scientific creation, divine
intervention is limited to causing the earth to be in a given state at a
given time, then leaving intact a constant set of principles by which
the universe continues to operate. In a sense, "divine intervention" is
a misnomer. The creationist's point is that the processes currently in
operation are insufficient to account for the world as it now is. Such a
conclusion is not beyond the realm of science; thus, creationists do not
"automatically exclude themselves for the realm of science."
Thus in time past, processes operated that are no longer in operation.
Logically, then, these processes had to be done by something external to
the system. And the question of existence at all gives rise to the idea
of a Creator who made matter exist. Since the Creator is beyond our
measurements, questions on His existence are academic.
John's example of the snowflake as "Localized entropy reduction" seems a
poor one. "Airborne molecules" [read: gas] collecting into a crystal
[read: solid] without loss of energy?
The argument of the sun providing the earth with an open system, and
thus able to circumvent the Second Law of Thermodynamics faces its own
problem: the energy may be there, but how can it be converted into
something useful? The sunlight falling on California may provide enough
energy to run the nation, but converting it into something useful is
another matter (and uses up some energy in the process). Something to
direct the conversion and something to actually *do* the conversion are
necessary.
It's also interesting how even the news media is biased toward
evolution. The last sentence of the article Lew Mammel cited reads
"Scientists say dinosaurs had been extinct for 70 million years before
the appearance of man." Come now, you wouldn't let some hard evidence
of coexistence dispel your precious theories - would you?
A paraphrase of Pat Wyant sums things up beautifully:
"Isn't it interesting how the creationists and evolutionists see the
same data differently?" Exactly. The *same* data. Which model does it
fit better, with fewer secondary assumptions?
Larry Bickford,
{ihnp4,ucbvax,decvax}!{sun,decwrl}!qubix!labtynor@uiucuxc.UUCP (02/12/84)
#R:qubix:-81200:uiucuxc:3900045:000:2359 uiucuxc!tynor Feb 11 10:16:00 1984 > Larry Bickford, {ihnp4,ucbvax,decvax}!{sun,decwrl}!qubix!lab /* > As has been worn to death in the past, John ties scientific > creation to religious beliefs. Once more, I make the point that > scientific creation has to stand on the merits of scientific > evidence, without stipulating that any particular religious > material is accurate. Although I am not aware of any creation > scientists who are not Christian, being a Christian is not a > prerequisite to being a creation scientist. The test is the > *evidence*. I must disagree. While it does not require belief in the Christian God, it does require the existance of some sort of supernatural being, or god. (Which, of course, we have *no* scientific evidence for...) > Another worn-to-death argument is that "divine intervention" could > account for anything. In the case for scientific creation, divine > intervention is limited to causing the earth to be in a given state > at a given time, then leaving intact a constant set of principles > by which the universe continues to operate. In a sense, "divine > intervention" is a misnomer. The creationist's point is that the > processes currently in operation are insufficient to account for > the world as it now is. Such a conclusion is not beyond the realm > of science; thus, creationists do not "automatically exclude > themselves for the realm of science." of coexistence dispel your > precious theories - would you? Why does limiting divine intervention (or if you regard it as a misnomer, *magic*) to single event in history make it any easier to digest as science? We're still requiring that supernatural force to explain the natural universe. > A paraphrase of Pat Wyant sums things up beautifully: "Isn't it > interesting how the creationists and evolutionists see the same > data differently?" Exactly. The *same* data. Which model does it > fit better, with fewer secondary assumptions? Which model does it fit better, with simpler secondary assumptions? Why the evolution model, of course. All the scientific model requires is time. The creationists insist on the supernatural. Any naturalistic explanation, no matter how complex, is *far* simpler than the creation explanation. Steve Tynor ihnp4!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!tynor University of Illinois - Champaign/Urbana
daver@hp-pcd.UUCP (02/20/84)
From what I have been reading it seems that most present research in evolution is done at the biochemical level rather than the gross anatomical level. Patterns of evolutionary development can be traced by looking at enzymes and other proteins performing similar functions in different species, and recently even at codon sequences for these proteins in the genetic material of different species. The evidence of successive divergence of biochemicals among species is often remarkable. A basic fallacy in many views of evolution is that the anatomy is what evolves. What actually evolves is the genetic material which creates the anatomy, biochemistry, etc. It is still too soon to be very specific on this subject (and I am not a biologist or biochemist), but there is evidence that very small changes in the genome of an individual can produce gross changes in the macroscopic appearance of that individual. Recent research seems to indicate that changing two bases in the DNA of a mammalian cell is all it takes to cause that cell to start reproducing uncontrollably and thus cause cancer. It could be that the "missing links" that people are looking for never existed because the only difference between the old form and the new form was the replacement of one or two nucleotides in the genome. A chicken is only an egg's way of making another egg! Dave Rabinowitz hplabs!hp-pcd!daver