torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) (10/16/85)
In article <46@utastro.UUCP> bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) writes: >NOTHING in science can ever be definitely proven. If you don't understand >this, you don't understand science. > >On the other hand, if an idea can't be shot down in principle, it's not >science. The existence of black holes, just as evolution, the ancient >age of the earth, and all the other assertions of science that Creationists >object to, could in principle be shot down scientifically, given the >appropriate evidence. [...] So far, so good. >NOTHING could in principle ever disprove your assertion that "what we observe >in nature is...the effect God has had on nature, namely, creationism". I'm an agnostic, but in fairness to atheists, I wouldn't rule out the possi- bility of disproving that assertion -- it might be done by proving that God does not exist. But more to the point, you have understated creationism. It doesn't just say that "whatever is in nature, God created it". It says "certain things (e.g. evolution, a multibillion-year-old earth, etc.) ARE NOT in nature". That statement is falsifiable -- and falsified! >I object to teaching of Creationism in the public schools because it is >not science, but pretends to be science. It's pseudoscience. > Bill Jefferys 8-% I object to it because though it is the kind of theory that can be tested by science, it is false; i.e. there is plenty of evidence against it. --Paul V Torek, upping the ante torek@umich
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (10/20/85)
I wrote: >>NOTHING could in principle ever disprove your assertion that "what we observe >>in nature is...the effect God has had on nature, namely, creationism". To which Paul Torek responded: >I'm an agnostic, but in fairness to atheists, I wouldn't rule out the possi- >bility of disproving that assertion -- it might be done by proving that God >does not exist. I don't see any way that metaphysical assertions about the existence or nonexistence of God (or the Damager-God, for that matter :-) can ever be proven. Correct me if I am wrong, but how could one establish the truth or falsehood of such propositions? >But more to the point, you have understated creationism. >It doesn't just say that "whatever is in nature, God created it". It says >"certain things (e.g. evolution, a multibillion-year-old earth, etc.) ARE >NOT in nature". That statement is falsifiable -- and falsified! I agree that from the point of view of science, these assertions have been falsified. But I don't think that the issue. To me the issue is whether Creationists sidestep such falsifications when they arise by resorting to the unfalsifiable hypothesis of an omnipotent God. I claim that they do. Thus, although these assertions have been falsified from a scientific point of view, according to the logic of "Scientific Creationism" they cannot be falsified. Therefore, I conclude that "Scientific Creationism" is not a science. Since it is claimed that "Scientific Creationism" is a science, I furthermore conclude that it is a pseudoscience. Consider the age of the universe, for example. To me as an astronomer, the fact that we can observe the light from objects billions of light years away is strong evidence of the ancientness of the universe. But consider what Henry Morris says (*Scientific Creationism*, p. 209) in addressing this very point: (b) Appearance of Age Another point important to recognize is that the creation was "mature" from its birth. It did not have to grow or develop from simple beginnings. God formed it full-grown in every respect, including even Adam and Eve as mature individuals when they were first formed. The whole universe had an "appearance of age" right from the start. It could not have been otherwise for true creation to have taken place. "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them" (Genesis 2:1). This fact means that the light from the sun, moon and stars was shining upon the earth as soon as they were created, since their very purpose was "...to give light on the earth" (Genesis 1:17). As a matter of fact, it is possible that these light-waves traversing space from the heavenly bodies to the earth were energized even *before* the heavenly bodies themselves in order to provide the light for the first three days. It was certainly no more difficult for God to form the light-waves than the "light-bearers" which would be established to serve as future generators of those waves. Morris has constructed a "bulletproof" position, impervious to any falsification by observational evidence. His argument is known as the "omphalos" (navel) argument, after the medieval question whether Adam and Eve had navels. It was asserted that God created Adam and Eve fully formed with navels, just as Morris claims God created the light from distant stars fully formed "in flight" towards the Earth, before He even created the stars themselves. The assertion "what we observe in nature is...the effect God has had on nature, namely, creationism" is really no different from this. Such an "explanation" is, of course, a non-explanation from the point of view of science, but under the peculiar logic of Creationism it is unassailable. -- Glend. I can call spirits from the vasty deep. Hot. Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them? -- Henry IV Pt. I, III, i, 53 Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (UUCP) bill@astro.UTEXAS.EDU. (Internet)