[net.origins] The long awaited proof _pro_ creationism

berger@aecom.UUCP (Mitchell Berger) (06/04/85)

      I thought I'd get you to read this article this  way.   The
truth  is,  you're  never  going  to  find any.  Creationism is a
religious belief, not a  scientific  one.   It  does  not  oblige
itself  to  be  provable.   Evolution  does lay claims to being a
science.  It must stand up to proof.  What  does  evolution  gain
from  this  obligation?   Universality.   If  evolution  is  ever
conclusively proven  (It's  inconclusiveness  will  be  discussed
later.) - every sane human would be forced to agree with it.  
       The question is,  can  it  ever  be  conclusively  proven?
(Aside  from the "G-d is just kidding claim".) Probably not.  Not
unless we develop time machines.  A scientific theory must  stand
up  to  experimentation and observation, something the past can't
do.  We may be able to say that evolution is  a  good  model  for
making  predictions about what geologists will find, which is not
really the same thing.  I guess you can say that the whole matter 
isn't really under the  realm  of  science.   You  can  duplicate
evolution,  and  still  not prove that it is what really what had
happened.  The past is dead.  The scientific method  can't  prove
if evolution _did_ happen, only that  it  _could_.   There  is  a
difference  between a theory for predicting geological finds, and
a law of nature.  
       You're probably asking me what _is_ the difference.   That
goes  back  to  the  "G-d's just kidding" idea.  Notice that this
claim can be made only about evolution, of all of  the  presently
debated theories out.  (Of course it is also the only theory that 
requires  such a response.) You don't here anyone saying that the
world is really deterministic, G-d is just making  it  look  like
it's  probabilistic.   Such a claim, although indisputable, would
require daily miracles.  Of course, the  net  result  is,  you've
just  said  that  item "x" isn't a law of nature, just that every
time the law is used,  G-d  over-rides  it.   Same  thing.   This
equivalence  doesn't  hold  true for evolution.  Try it mentally.
It only requires G-d over-riding the rules of nature  once,  when
He  created them.  Because evolution doesn't claim to be a law of
nature, but an event. So I ask again, why is it called "science"?
       The question is, why _would_ G-d want to fool us?  I don't 
know, ask him.  But  I  have  a  couple  of  guesses.   Maybe  He
realized  that  if  we  all  had  indesputable  evedence  that He
existed, there would be no challenge (or  value)  to  being  good
little  girls and boys.  Or, maybe, that the laws of nature can't
work unless they are applied retroactively.  It is also  possable
that  as  He was creating time, the aging of things aren't at the
same rate they are now.  That for six days, c was greater than it 
is now; not  only  causing  star-light  to  reach  us,  but  also
decreasing  the  half-life  of  carbon.   Why  would it?  I don't
really know, I never  really  thought  about  it.   It's  just  a
thought.  
       Thanks for hanging in for 52 lines. I'm soon leaving the net.
Send replies to:
		Micha Berger
		141-22 68 Drive
		Flushing, NY 11367-1651 (Zip+4)

       Bye folks!
-- 
Micha Berger
2525 Amsterdam Ave. Suite M406  NY, NY 10033     (212) 781-0756
{philabs|cucard|pegasus|rocky2}!aecom!berger