bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (02/10/84)
Scientists complain that creationism is not a science because it lacks predictive power. Since any observation can be "explained" by appeal to an omnipotent Creator, creationism finds itself in the paradoxical position that, able to explain any conceivable observation, it actually is capable of explaining nothing. This is the reason why the creationist claim to be a science is not taken seriously by scientists. But then, perhaps this is an unfair criticism. Creationists seem to be ambivalent about whether creationism is a science or a religion. Sometimes they say it is a science (as in "Creation Science"), and other times they claim that both it and evolution are "religions". Perhaps we can shed some light on this situation. To me the key criterion by which one distingushes science from religion is that science is by nature *falsifiable*. That is to say, any *scientific* theory must, in principle, be capable of being disproven by appropriate observational evidence. For example, one can conceive of many observations that would seriously challenge evolution, observations that, if true, would constitute acceptable evidence to most evolutionists (see below). The problem with creationist criticism of evolution has been that creationist arguments have not been considered scientifically valid by evolutionists. Let me suggest an alternative approach: Let *evolutionists* propose conceivable observations whose implications would be so serious *to evolutionists* that it would cause them to question the validity of evolutionary theory. Similarly, let *creationists* demonstrate that their discipline is indeed a science by suggesting conceivable observations that would cause *them* to question the validity of creationism. In order to set the stage, let me propose the following rules: 1) The proposed data could conceivably be obtained in some realistic way, using present-day techniques. 2) The data must be described in sufficient detail as to its nature and as to any special conditions that must be satisfied to assure its authenticity, that an impartial judge could determine whether, indeed, the data do indeed satisfy the conditions. Any special conditions imposed must be reasonable, 3) The proposer must show why the data would cast serious doubt on his or her firmly held position, and must justify the reasonableness of the special conditions proposed. 4) Only evolutionists may propose tests to evolutionary theory. Only creationists may propose tests to creation theory. To get the ball rolling, I will describe data that would present serious problems for *my* belief in evolution. I would seriously question evolutionary theory if a site were found and excavated that had bona fide dinosaur and humanoid bones found *in situ*, in association with each other. I would require that the excavation be done in the presence of recognized evolutionist experts in the field of paleontology, and that they verify that the bones have been correctly identified. I would further require that the bones be dated with the best available radiometric or other physical chronometric techniques, that discordant dates be rejected, and that the difference between the means of the accepted dates of the dinosaur and humanoid bones lie within the 95% confidence band. Finally, I would require that the discovery be submitted for publication in a standard refereed journal (but I do not require that it be accepted for publication). I believe that an observation of this kind, if actually made, would cast serious doubt on the hypothesis that the dinosaurs died roughly 70 million years before humans appeared on the scene. I believe that since dinosaur and human bones are much more common in the fossil record than are tracks, a discovery of this kind would be as probable, if not more so, than the discovery of the alleged "human" tracks at Paluxy and other sites, without the difficulties of interpretation that these sites have. I require the presence of evolutionist experts to prevent attempts to substitute false evidence and to confirm the authenticity of the material, and I require the dating as further assurance that the site has not been tampered with, as well as for independent confirmation (that is, other than the stratigraphy) that the two individuals are actually contemporaneous. I believe that the requirement of the expert witnesses is inherently reasonable, and I have confidence in the accuracy of presently known dating techniques. The requirement for submission to a refereed journal is for the purpose of obtaining independent evaluation of the methods used and the results obtained, for the consideration of the impartial judge, if one is needed. I warrant that I am an evolutionist. -- Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {ihnp4,kpno,ctvax}!ut-sally!utastro!bill (uucp) utastro!bill@ut-ngp (ARPANET)
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/18/84)
There is one little problem with asserting that finding contemporaneous human and dinosaur bones would invalidate evolutionary theory. This is in the definition of "dinosaur". Some "dinosaurs" are well known to be contemporaneous with humans. If I remember rightly, alligators qualify. What you really mean is some species of dinosaurs certifiably extinct long before primates evolved. By now, we have explored enough of the world to be pretty sure of the extinction of important species, but had the question been asked 50 or 100 years ago, people were still unsure whether perhaps large dinos might live in isolated parts of the world. Even now, with sea creatures, surprises happen, as witness the coelacanth which emerged from millions of years of extinction in some fisherman's net a few years ago. I would modify the test simply to require that there be human bones discovered having a certifiable (by stratigraphy, radiocarbon dating, etc) age greater than several million years. At the least, such a discovery would require considerable revisions to our ideas about evolution or physics (they could be accounted for by time-travellers from our future, for example). Another possible test would be the discovery of some life-form, whether current or fossil, that did not use the "standard" forms of genetic replication, and had no relatives in the fossil record. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt