miller@uiucdcs.UUCP (01/28/84)
#N:uiucdcs:10600133:000:5275
uiucdcs!miller Jan 28 01:02:00 1984
Having not bothered to read net.misc for almost a year, it seems like I
missed quite a bit. However, I'd like to start in again with a response to
John Hobson's criticisms of scientific creationism. There are a number of
things in his articles with which I disagree, but I'll simply address a few
since I don't want this to be too long.
Specifically, Larry Bickford claimed that "by far the vast majority who
believe in evolution have also believed the straw man that evolutionists have
created from the Genesis account and then ridiculed". Hobson takes offense at
this, claiming "I, for one, have done extensive reading in the works of Henry
Morris, R. L. Wysong, Duane Gish, et al." Presumably then, Hobson should be
able to accurately review and criticize the creationists' position. But does
he? Let's look at the record.
Hobson writes "Creationists, in their 'scientific' arguments, tend towards
double-talk, mis-quotation, mis-representation, and outright fraud". In his
attempt to justify his statement, he does exactly what he alleges the creation-
ists do. He discusses the second law of thermodynamics argument, and attri-
butes many positions to the creationists they simply do not hold. I'll alter-
nately quote from Hobson's note and then from Dr. Morris' "What is Creation
Science" to demonstrate the straw man.
Hobson: Central to their reasoning is the notion that "uphill" processes cannot
occur naturally. [He then gives a counter-example of snowflakes, half suggest-
ing that creationists don't believe in the possibility of their formation.]
Dr. Morris: Evolutionists frequently charge creationists with saying that the
Second Law makes all systems go downhill. They then triumphantly point to a
crystal or to a growing plant and say: 'See! If the system is open, it can
increase in order and complexity.' Now despite such evolutionist allegations,
no knowledgeable creationist ever says that all systems go downhill. [He then
continues his discussion of when and under what conditions entropy decreases.]
Hobson: They misinterpret the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of
thermodynamics refers specifically to closed systems, but the earth's biosphere
is not a closed system, since it is constantly receiving energy from the sun.
Dr. Morris: Many evolutionists insist that evolution could take place locally
and temporarily. The earth is an open system, and there is energy enough from
the sun to sustain evolution ... Having an open system is a necessary, but not
a sufficient condition. [He then discusses sufficient conditions.]
Notice the pattern? Hobson's review is not a true picture of what crea-
tionists claim. Hence to attack the image of creationists Hobson has built
is to prove nothing.
Indeed, Morris makes a good point and many evolutionists recognize it.
For example in "Life: An Introduction to Biology" Gaylord and Beck write "The
simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order.
A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains
organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifica-
tions; it requires information on how to proceed." (They just mentioned one of
the other conditions for entropy decrease, by the way...) Jeffrey Wicken says
it even more strongly in "The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermo-
dynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion" which appeared in the "Journal
of Theoretical Biology" when he wrote "Evolutionary processes are *anamorphic*,
or complexity generating. The passage of evolutionary time is accompanied by
the emergence of structures having progressively greater morphological and
functional complexity. But the essential feature of evolutionary anamorphosis
remains enigmatic. It has not been successfully derived from or identified
with more fundamental physico-chemical laws, particularly those of thermodyna-
mics; nor has it been adequately explained at its own phenomenological level by
evolutionary theory. Neo-Darwinism in particular seems to have enormous diffi-
culty in accounting for this fundamental feature of evolutionary processes."
Thermodynamics is a complex subject, which I may go into more detail at a
later date. But this time, let me point out just one more comment which really
jumped out at me. Hobson writes "Remember that, in order to become a member of
the Institute for Creation Research, one must sign an oath saying that one
believes implicitly and without reservation in the literal truth of the Bible."
This is false on the face of it by virtue of the fact that ICR is a non-member-
ship organization. Perhaps he was thinking of the Creation Research Society?
It's not a big mistake, but it's one someone who has done "extensive reading"
should not have made.
Well, that's all I have time for now. I like to talk about this subject,
but only have so much time. Besides, it seems creation / evolution notes have
been spread across net.[misc, general, space, physics, religion, philosophy,
and books] at one time or another. No way I'm going to read all of that. Next
time, I'll try and go into the Paluxy River tracks as I have first hand know-
ledge of that site.
A. Ray Miller
Univ Illinoismiller@uiucdcs.UUCP (miller ) (02/05/84)
#N:uiucdcs:10600137:000:5197
uiucdcs!miller Feb 5 01:12:00 1984
Before I submit my note tomorrow on the Paluxy River fossil footprints, I
need to respond to several creation/evolution notes that have already appeared.
First, to John Hobson since he has been the most prolific writer. [BTW John,
it really makes no difference to me as to your title. I simply didn't know
last time. Let me know what you prefer and I will be happy to comply.]
Last week, John wrote a note criticizing creationists' entropy arguments.
His entire argument was summed up when he said creationists "...misinterpret
the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics refers spe-
cifically to closed systems, but the earth's biosphere is not a closed system".
My reply last week showed that's John's portrayal of creationists was extremely
distorted; creationists acknowledge the earth is an open system. But they
point out that is a *necessary* but not *sufficient* condition.
Changing tactics this week, John now claims creationists say "Open,
closed, what's the difference?" To help support this allegation, he quotes a
definition of the 2nd law by Dr. Morris and then writes "In this quotation, the
words 'closed system' are not mentioned". Well, had he read onto THE VERY NEXT
PAGE, he would have seen where Dr. Morris begins a discussion of open/closed
systems and their implications.
Later, John writes "No one alleges that having an open system is suffi-
cient for decreased entropy" (despite the fact that that was his sole objection
last week). Finally, we agree; it is not sufficient. Indeed, there are three
other conditions which must be met. I refer you to chapter 4 of "What is Crea-
tion Science?" by Drs. Morris and Parker for a list and evaluation of those
conditions.
I leave the topic of thermodynamics for now with a quote from Dr. Eden, in
EE and info science, and an evolutionist. Writing in "Inadequacies of Neo-
Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory" which appeared in "Mathematical
Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution" (recommended read-
ing for everyone) he says "No currently existing formal language can tolerate
random changes in the symbol sequence which expresses its sentences. Meaning
is almost invariably destroyed. Any changes must be syntactically lawful ones.
I would conjecture that what one might call 'genetic grammaticality' has a de-
terministic explanation and does not owe its stability to selection pressure
acting on random variation." (Also, Dr. Schutzenberger (also an evolutionist)
in the same symposium, was trying to explain some probability and simulation
studies he had done on some computers. The results were not pleasing to the
chairman, Dr. Waddington, who got so frustrated, that he cut Dr. Schutzenberger
off in mid-sentence with "We are not interested in your computers!" So much
for objectivity...)
Next, several people got annoyed that creationists like to quote evolu-
tionists a lot. Why is this so? Well, if a creationist like Dr. Gish is to
say something like "Golly, there sure are a lot of gaps in the fossil record",
then evolutionists reply something like "*yawn* sure buddy, that's what you
say". So instead, to document the particular point they are trying to make at
that time, they will quote an evolutionist like Dr. Kitts writing "Despite the
bright promise that paleontology [which is the study of fossils] provides a
means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for
evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the
fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and pal-
eontology does not provide them." Do the people being quoted still accept evo-
lution? Of course, the statement would not be useful to creationists other-
wise. They are merely used to document some point or other that normally would
be laughed off by "open minded" people like Dr. Waddington.
The last comments I wish to make are about initial conditions, as everyone
seems mad with Larry Bickford on that point. The reasoning seems to follow the
line: since creation is a non-repeatable event, it is outside of the scientific
method. This was stated in a variety of forms by several people. Well,
anyone reading any books *by* creationists, instead of *about* creationists,
would know that they concede that point. Strictly speaking, yes, it is outside
of the scientific method. But the same is true of evolution! The big bang,
origin of life on this planet, rise and fall of the dinosaurs, etc. etc., are
all events which occurred in the *past*. They cannot be repeated. There is a
difference between a legal and a scientific proof. That is not to say science
has nothing to say on the matter, however. Just as science gives evidence as to
whether or not George Washington ever lived, so can it give evidence as to the
origin of the universe. But neither can be repeated, and neither is strictly
within the scientific method. BTW, the man who formulated and established the
scientific method was Sir Francis Bacon. Although he lived before the time of
Darwin, he strongly believed the concept of special creation.
A. Ray Miller
Univ Illinoismiller@uiucdcs.UUCP (miller ) (02/07/84)
#N:uiucdcs:10600138:000:6342
uiucdcs!miller Feb 6 12:55:00 1984
I'd like to continue the creation/evolution discussion with a review of
the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas. You see, according to evolutionists,
dinosaurs became extinct 70 million years before the appearance of any primate,
and in particular, man. Creationists contend that at one point, all of the
various kinds of plants and animals were alive at the same time (with only ex-
tinctions occurring since then). Basically the same order of fossils in the
geological column is to be expected by either model (see "The Genesis Flood" by
Dr. Henry Morris for why). However, so called "out-of order" fossils are
perfectly consistent with the creation model; they are fatal to evolution.
In Glen Rose, Texas, the Paluxy River cuts through the local column of
Cretaceous limestone. Long known for its abundance of dinosaur fossilized
footprints, Texas set up "Dinosaur Valley State Park". In the same strata with
the dinosaur footprints, creationists claim to have discovered human foot-
prints. If true, it is strong positive confirmation of the creation model.
I have seen literature on both sides of the issue, e.g., "Tracking Those
Incredible Dinosaurs" by the creationist Dr. John Morris, and the evolutionary
"Creation/Evolution" and "Skeptical Inquirer". In addition, I had the
opportunity to spend the last spring break on the McFall farm on the Paluxy.
My conclusions: the human tracks are genuine. In talking with people and in
reading the literature, I have found three levels of knowledge on the subject:
LEVEL 1: Some people simply define the tracks out of existence. They claim
they don't exist. However, as this site (and others like it; Paluxy is not
alone - it is simply the biggest known so far) gets more media attention,
people are starting to become more aware and so the number of people in Level 1
is getting smaller.
LEVEL 2: The tracks exist, but they aren't old footprints. This category can
be divided into several subsections. For example, some claim that the tracks
are erosion patterns from the Paluxy, dinosaur tail drags, etc. This explains
some, but not all, of the features. Indeed, erosion patterns and tail drags
can be found. But those things do not create subtle human foot features such
as toe impressions, ball of foot, arch, heel, and other distinct characteris-
tics. Despite what many would like to believe, these features do exist in many
of the prints and are in correct sizes and proportions in a clear right-left
sequence. You know, one of the reasons Austrolopithecus is claimed by some to
have walked upright is that Mary Leakey found a footprint in rock strata in
which bones such as Lucy, etc. were found. But that footprint is not nearly as
good as quality as some of those found in Glen Rose; yet no one questions that
*some* primate made Leakey's tracks. The only reason the Glen Rose footprints
are rejected is that they are found in Cretaceous limestone (a case of theory
getting in the way of fact it appears to me). Another explanation for the
tracks is that they were carved as hoaxes. Again, this has some merit, but
does not explain all of the data. In the Great Depression era, the local
residents found out that there was a market for these prints. So, they begin
cutting them out of the limestone and selling them. Eventually, however, the
supply of known footprints (mostly dinosaur since they brought a higher price)
ran out. A man by the name of Bull Adams learned that he could carve the
things easier than he could remove the top heavy limestone layers and discover
new ones. So, he began to carve them (again, mostly dino although a few human
ones were carved). However, since the time of Bull Adams (motivated by $$$$
rather than any creation/evolution implications) new tracks have been discover-
ed, sometimes in full view of the media and evolutionary scientists sent to
"oversee" the work. This is well documented in the literature if you care to
spend the time searching it all out. And last, I need to mention one final
evidence that the tracks are genuine. In some places, the original mud was not
homogeneous. In those cases, a series of lamination lines can be observed by
cross-sectioning the prints. In the case of carvings (either by erosion or by
human tools) the depressions cut through the lamination lines. In genuine
footprints made when the mud was soft, the lamination lines follow the contour
of the depressions. Many of the prints have been subjected to cross-sectioning
and have been shown to be authentic. This is illustrated below:
REAL FOOTPRINT CARVING
lamination lines lamination lines
follow the contour cut across
of the depression the depression
____ ____ ____ ____
____\ /____ _____ _____
____\\____//____ ________________
\\____//
\____/
LEVEL 3: The prints are real footprints, but they are not human. This is the
response usually given by evolutionists who have had the opportunity to observe
first-hand the excavation of some of the better prints (you realize, of course,
that there is a variety of quality in the prints - both dino and human. This
is to be expected for any animal walking through mud which may vary in consis-
tency, wetness, etc.) This is a fair point to raise. After all, no living
human was alive when the prints were laid down in the Cretaceous limestone.
However, the question then raised for evolutionists is if men did not make the
tracks, what did? Any primate does not solve the problems as none were sup-
posed to be around at that time. In fact, no evidence has ever been found for
a hypothetical creature with a footprint IDENTICAL to man. The anatomical fea-
tures are so good in some of the prints, it is only evolutionary presupposi-
tions that stand in the way of the obvious conclusion: at one time, man
coexisted with the dinosaurs.
Objective people like to hear both sides of an issue. I strongly suggest
you read material by both creationists and evolutionists on the matter (not
material *about* one side *by* the other). Then make up your own minds.
A. Ray Miller
Univ Illinoisbill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (02/08/84)
There are a number of reasons to reject the alleged human footprints at Paluxy as evidence for humans and dinosaurs having lived at the same time. As Ray Miller, along with many other creationists admit, there is undoubted evidence of widespread faking of the footprints. This in itself throws grave suspicion on them, and makes the burden of proof on those who claim that some of them are genuine very heavy indeed. Ray compares the footprints at Glen Rose to those found by Mary Leakey at Olduvai Gorge, and states that Leakey's footprints are "not nearly as good as quality as some of those found in Glen Rose". He cites "subtle human foot features such as toe impressions, ball of foot, arch of heel,...". In my opinion this is just what you would expect of fakes. Real human footprints in sloggy mud suffer from the mud squishing around the toes and being distorted when the foot is withdrawn. We ought to be suspicious of prints that are *too* perfect, especially given the fact that faking has been widespread. Ray discusses the cross-sections of prints: >> human tools) the depressions cut through the lamination lines. In genuine >> footprints made when the mud was soft, the lamination lines follow the contour >> of the depressions. Many of the prints have been subjected to cross-sectioning >> and have been shown to be authentic. This is illustrated below: >> >> REAL FOOTPRINT CARVING >> lamination lines lamination lines >> follow the contour cut across >> of the depression the depression >> ____ ____ ____ ____ >> ____\ /____ _____ _____ >> ____\\____//____ ________________ >> \\____// >> \____/ Well, again, if you want to produce a convincing fake, the best way to do it is to take an existing depression and "touch it up". It is known that this has been done to some of the Paluxy specimens. Fake or not, however, the real problem with the markings is that there are too many possible ways that they could have been produced, both artificially and naturally, for them to be taken seriously as evidence for creationism. Both sides have axes to grind, and considered as evidence, the markings are weak evidence at best. Now to a point which I consider to be a very strong reason to reject the markings as spurious. Fossil footprints, whether human or dinosaur, are very rare finds, because the conditions under which they will be preserved are very unusual. Skeletal remains are far more common. If, as Ray Miller claims, several sites had *genuine* human tracks alongside dinosaur tracks, it is virtually certain that fossil human skeletal remains would long since have been found in association with, or at the very least in the same strata as dinosaur remains. Indeed, one would hardly be able to hear for the whoops of joy from the creationists if such a finding were to be made. Yet never, at any time, has such a discovery been made. Why not? I think it's obvious: They haven't been found because they aren't there. And I venture a prediction, based on evolutionary theory (creationists are fond of accusing evolutionism of being "unscientific" because it "doesn't make predictions"): Such a find will never be made. Why do the creationists persist in presenting these "tracks" as genuine evidence in favor of creationism, despite their weakness as evidence and the embarrassment that much faking of the markings has gone on in the past? I think that it is because, weak as this evidence is, it is one of the best things creationists have come up with, and they are reluctant to cast it aside. I haven't discussed all of the flaws that I found in Ray's article, but I think I'll stop here because this article is already long enough. -- 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)
karn@allegra.UUCP (Phil Karn) (02/09/84)
I think there's a problem here. Why are the creationists always on the offensive attempting to disprove evolutionary theory? The scientists shouldn't always be on the defensive! We really ought to give them a chance to present the SPECIFIC tenets of creationist theory in such a manner that they can't back down from their assertions when they are found to contradict physical evidence or even each other. I suspect there's a very good reason why this isn't happening. I'm game; anybody want to assert the earth was created in ~4,000 BC? Phil
miller@uiucdcs.UUCP (miller ) (02/12/84)
#N:uiucdcs:10600139:000:4664
uiucdcs!miller Feb 12 00:11:00 1984
A few replies on the creation/evolution issue:
In a reply to Paul Dubuc, Byron Howes' claim that abiogenesis and evolu-
tion "are not necessarily linked" won't hold water. To appeal to such things
as life coming from space, like Sir Fred Hoyle does in "Evolution from Space",
doesn't solve the problem; it sweeps it under the rug. The followup question
then is: where did *that* life come from? Ultimately, you must appeal to
spontaneous generation.
In his next article, he claims that any sort of divine intervention (by
which I assume he includes creation) "trashes science as it has been conducted
in the past and as it is conducted today". I think he should speak for him-
self, not for the great scientists of the past such as Louis Pasteur, Isaac
Newton, Johann Kepler, Robert Boyle, Charles Babbage, Blaise Pascal, James
Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, Gregor Mendel, Michael Faraday, Carolus Linnaeus,
etc. etc. etc. I have no doubt how all of those great men of faith and of sci-
ence would answer net.misc's question of "can creationists contribute to
science?" Indeed, Sir Francis Bacon, who developed and established the scien-
tific method, firmly believed in special creation. Did these men, who claimed
to be "thinking God's thoughts after Him" do what was claimed, i.e., "trash
science"?
Ken Perlow writes of creationists "let them publish their stuff in scien-
tific journals, where it can be studied by the scientific community, or else
prove that they've been refused the forum". OK, I'll take you up on that
challenge. Many creationists have published in scientific journals, including
the much quoted Dr. Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research. But
in all cases, the *implications* of the data must be carefully masked or else
it is rejected. The most recent case I'm aware of is Dr. Robert Gentry. While
at Oak Ridge National Labs, he published quite a bit on Polonium halos in the
standard journals. He successfully answered all challenges to his data, and
offered tests by which his conclusions could be falsified. Eventually, how-
ever, his NSF funding was denied when other creationists began publishing the
*implications* of his work, i.e., that the earth's crust had to be formed in <3
seconds. Another example: the Creation Research Society tried to take out a
paid advertisement in "Scientific American". Just a simple: here we are,
here's what we do, write here for more info sort of thing. It was -rejected-.
Now I ask you: if a paid advertisement was turned down, what chance do you
think they have of getting an article published with open creationist conclu-
sions?
Steve Tynor writes "Any naturalistic explanation, no matter how complex,
is *far* simpler than the creation explanation". Such a priori exclusion of a
certain conclusion is totally nonobjective. It's no wonder that he also writes
"we have *no* scientific evidence for [a supernatural being]". Of course not.
He has defined it out of existence. There is no amount of scientific evidence,
no data, *nothing* that could be presented to someone who, like Sir Authur
Keith, wrote "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the
only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable."
Finally, I noticed that Lew Mammel's article chose to attack me rather
than the Paluxy data I presented. Typical. He correctly points out that I am
president of the UI chapter of Students for Origins Research, spending a great
deal of time on how relevant he thinks that is. His cavalier attitude is a
good example of what Larry Bickford spoke of earlier. It is one of: "Oh. He's
a creationist. I can ignore anything he says. CLICK. Off goes the mind." As
Lew himself said "And he presumes to lecture us on the requirements of objec-
tive judgement!" Exactly.
Lew also seemed quite interested in quoting the "Origins Research" account
of my trip to the Paluxy River, and of pointing out that I referred to crea-
tionists in the third person plural. Had he read my articles a bit closer, he
would have known that I: 1) acknowledged my visit to the McFall farm (in two
different articles); 2) openly sided with the creationists' conclusions (and
said why); and 3) referred to evolutionists in the third person plural also.
CLICK.
Last, he claims that because Dr. Baugh intends to build a creationist mu-
seum, that that "casts a long, dark shadow over the scientific legitimacy of
Dr. Baugh's paleontology". Why??? Do evolutionary paleontologists who state
their interpretations and who put their material in museums get ostracized by
Lew also? CLICK.
A. Ray Miller
Univ Illinoistynor@uiucuxc.UUCP (02/14/84)
#R:uiucdcs:10600139:uiucuxc:3900046:000:3468 uiucuxc!tynor Feb 13 22:54:00 1984 > A. Ray Miller Univ Illinois /* ---------- */ > > I think he should speak for him- self, not for the great > scientists of the past such as Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton, Johann > Kepler, Robert Boyle, Charles Babbage, Blaise Pascal, James Maxwell, > Lord Kelvin, Gregor Mendel, Michael Faraday, Carolus Linnaeus, etc. > etc. etc. I have no doubt how all of those great men of faith and of > sci- ence would answer net.misc's question of "can creationists > contribute to science?" Indeed, Sir Francis Bacon, who developed and > established the scien- tific method, firmly believed in special > creation. Did these men, who claimed to be "thinking God's thoughts > after Him" do what was claimed, i.e., "trash science"? Did any of these great men of science inject supernatural explanations into their scientific work? No. I don't see how the ignorance of great scientists of the past sheads any credence on the creationists position... I could claim that because Kepler believed in astrology we should consider it a valid scientific discipline... Hogwash? Of course, but so is A. Ray's argument. > Ken Perlow writes of creationists "let them publish their stuff in > scien- tific journals, where it can be studied by the scientific Another example: the Creation Research Society tried to take out a paid > advertisement in "Scientific American". Just a simple: here we are, > here's what we do, write here for more info sort of thing. It was > -rejected-. Now I ask you: if a paid advertisement was turned down, > what chance do you think they have of getting an article published with > open creationist conclu- sions? I think I can explain this one. The Creation Research Society requires its members to swear an oath proclaiming their belief in the biblical creation of the world. 'Scientific American' has a certain standard to which it must abide by. It features serious articles about scientific subjects. The Creation Research Society is anti-science: it requires its voting members to *reject* evolution. The Creation Research Society is a religious organization (regardless of what they call themselves) and the advertisment was purely religious propaganda. Should SA also be required to publish adds by the Church of Scientology, Maharesi Yogi, etc.? > Steve Tynor writes "Any naturalistic explanation, no matter how > complex, is *far* simpler than the creation explanation". Such a > priori exclusion of a certain conclusion is totally nonobjective. Nonobjective? Rather a simple application of Occam's Razor. Even the creationists must accept the reality of a causal universe (No flames from the philosophers please...) But they need more. Their explanation requires the existance of the supernatural, something which is not bound by the natural laws of the universe, a god. No matter how anyone might argue to the contrary, the concept of God is far more complex than the most complicated mechanistic explanation. When dealing with science, one attempts to explain natural phenomenon in terms of natural phenomenon. By introducing the supernatural, we introduce an entity which requires a *HUGE* ammont of explanation. (What is it, what natural laws does it follow, etc.) Sorry, the creation explanation is a cop-out. (and certainly not simple!) Steve Tynor ihnp4!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!tynor University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana
bch@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes ) (02/15/84)
Ray Miller writes: >> In a reply to Paul Dubuc, Byron Howes' claim that abiogenesis and evolu- >>tion "are not necessarily linked" won't hold water. To appeal to such things >>as life coming from space, like Sir Fred Hoyle does in "Evolution from Space", >>doesn't solve the problem; it sweeps it under the rug. The followup question >>then is: where did *that* life come from? Ultimately, you must appeal to >>spontaneous generation. I have to confess that this statement irritates me more than a tad. Has Ray misread my article that badly, or is he only selecting out those bits he feels he can refute? The *reason* that abiogenesis is not critical to evo- lutionary theory is that evolutionary theory (contrary to some creationist's beliefs) does not address the question of the origin of life! The question it *does* address is that of the development of species given an intitial state of a relative uniformity of life forms (the blue-green algae state, if you will.) Although the initial state hypothesis of evolutionary theory does contradict the hypothesis of a Genesis-like creation, evolutionary theory does not address the question of creation itself. As I pointed out (and Ray conveniently overlooked) in my original article evolutionary theory is compatible with not only the spermata theory of the origins of life on earth, but also with a subset of the "compact intervention" models of life origins -- albeit not those which hypothesize simultaneous creation of a multiplicity of life forms. Am I being clear enough? Ray is correct in pointing out that a spermata theory leaves the question of the origin of life relatively open. There are at least two possibilities here: (1) Abiogenesis in an environment different from that of primitive earth (making Miller's experiments informative but incomplete and opening the question to considerable debate.) (2) A period of "special creation" taking place somewhere other than earth. (Again, an hypothesis I suspect is completely unacceptable to most creation- ists.) >> In his next article, he claims that any sort of divine intervention (by >>which I assume he includes creation) "trashes science as it has been conducted >>in the past and as it is conducted today". I think he should speak for him- >>self, not for the great scientists of the past such as Louis Pasteur, Isaac >>Newton, Johann Kepler, Robert Boyle, Charles Babbage, Blaise Pascal, James >>Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, Gregor Mendel, Michael Faraday, Carolus Linnaeus, >>etc. etc. etc. I have no doubt how all of those great men of faith and of sci- >>ence would answer net.misc's question of "can creationists contribute to >>science?" Indeed, Sir Francis Bacon, who developed and established the scien- >>tific method, firmly believed in special creation. Did these men, who claimed >>to be "thinking God's thoughts after Him" do what was claimed, i.e., "trash >>science"? The catch is, Ray that none of the individuals listed above incorporated their belief in creation into their scientific hypothesis. I do not claim that scientists who believe in creation trash science, but rather than scientific theories which incorporate divine intervention make the conduct of science impossible under their axioms. There is a difference. Why does science become impossible? Let's posit, for the moment, that we find incontravertible proof that an active deity indulged in a period of "compact intervention" wherein some, or all, of the rules and relationships we believe to exist in the universe were suspended or changed. Do we not, now, have to admit the possibility that the results of any scientific experiment or observation may be the result of divine intervention, even up to and including things we *think* we know now, such as the rules governing orbital mechanics? Do we not have to consider any experiment, past present or future, potentially irreproducible and, worse, any experimental or observational failure or anomaly also potentially a result of a capricious deity? To me, this makes the conduct of science (and possibly life) an extremely chance, if not impossible, business. Creationists, if I read them correctly, say that "compact intervention" was a one-time occurrence. I don't know what evidence they have for this. If such evidence exists, however, could it not be the result of a later intervention? Hey, maybe their never were any dinosaurs, just footprints and fossiles left as the result of the divine hand! Do you see what I mean? "Knowledge" becomes infinitely more uncertain under the axiom of an interfering deity than it is already. Even the use of science becomes an imponderable. It is one thing to pray for guidance and safety prior to a shuttle launch, it is another to pray that the laws of orbital mechanics not be changed until the launch is over. Goodbye technology, hello witch-doctors! Again, creationists may claim that I am exaggerating to the absurd. Yet the Bible seems to document many, many cases of intervention with respect to the laws of physics. Was not the rotation of the earth supposed to be halted or reversed during the Battle of Jericho, for example? If it happened once, what is to say it won't happen again? How do we know? How can we ever know? -- "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill (decvax!mcnc!unc!bch)
ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) (02/16/84)
From Ray Miller: In a reply to Paul Dubuc, Byron Howes' claim that abiogene- sis and evolution "are not necessarily linked" won't hold water. To appeal to such things as life coming from space, like Sir Fred Hoyle does in "Evolution from Space", doesn't solve the problem; it sweeps it under the rug. The followup question then is: where did *that* life come from? Ultimately, you must appeal to spontaneous generation. The "creationist" alternative seems to be that life was brought into being by a supernatural being, which also begs the question. How did that supernatural being come into existance--spontaneous generation? The theory of evolution is strictly speaking concerned with the evo- lution of various species from some original form of life. Therefore even if you could prove that life on earth was originally brought into existance by some outside intelligence you would not have disproved the theory of evolution per se. Kenneth Almquist
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (02/17/84)
I still have trouble with the "slippery slope" nature of the arguments against compact intervention. The point still remains that allowing for the possibility of divine intervention does not *demand* that we distrust scientific evidence. How do we know the creator is whimsical or deceptive? The "problem" with compact intervention (I think) is that in order for us to be able to work with it we have to go beyond science. We have to attempt a study of the nature of the Creator himself. My gosh! That would mean science would have to acknowledge theology as an important area of study, a valid intellectual persuit! How terrible. :-) Paul Dubuc
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (02/18/84)
> I still have trouble with the "slippery slope" nature of the arguments > against compact intervention. The point still remains that allowing for > the possibility of divine intervention does not *demand* that we distrust > scientific evidence. How do we know the creator is whimsical or deceptive? How do we know that he, she, or it isn't? Admitting that something magical happened once means that, unless you have *convincing* evidence to the contrary, one must assume it can happen again. > The "problem" with compact intervention (I think) is that in order for us > to be able to work with it we have to go beyond science. We have to > attempt a study of the nature of the Creator himself. My gosh! That > would mean science would have to acknowledge theology as an important > area of study, a valid intellectual persuit! How terrible. It's a valid intellectual pursuit in the same way philosophy and mathematics are. It is not, however, science; neither are philosophy nor mathematics. If such interventions are purely guided by the will of a creator which is not subject to any natural laws, there's no way to make predictions about the creator's behavior and hence no way to test hypotheses about rules governing its behavior. Note, however, that the existence of compact intervention in no way indicates that a creator or creators is a "he" or "she" or anything we'd consider similar to the Judaeo-Christian deity, so it may be that the creator's behavior is purely random and the unsophisticated gambler the ideal theologician. Any creationist upset by this proposition should re-examine their "scientific creationist" credentials; it is certainly as philosophically valid a hypothesis on the nature of the creator as any other. Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy