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