dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (05/17/85)
I would like to thank Duncan Buell for posting an extremely clearly stated and well-written article on the nature of creation and evolution theory. Naturally I have some disagreement with him, but his thoughtful and thought-provoking posting certainly deserves a response. He begins: > I have been forwarded 600K bytes of net.origins, and have > read it through fairly carefully. (I am not on the > appropriate network, so I get things forwarded.) And I have > some comments for all of you, comments which I hope you will > all take seriously. I promise. > Practically everyone on this list > spends most of his time in picking nits of one sort or > other. You would be amazed to see the list in the large > chunks that I see, with double and triple and quadruple quo- > tations and responses, going on for a number of lines, all > leading up to a one line comment which is the new material. > Only very rarely is there any real discussion or coherent > presentation of ideas. Unfortunately true. (I am as guilty of this as anyone.) Just an aside here: if anyone has access to it, try to get hold of "Is Evolution Proved?", edited by Arnold Lunn. (Hollis and Carter, London, 1947) It is in the form of a debate via correspondence, between Douglas Dewar and H S Shelton. This book is particularly interesting in that it has a number of characteristics found in this newsgroup. For example, the struggle to understand what the other side is saying, the stuggle to keep from misrepresenting the other point of view, the allegations that such-and-such is evidence for/against creation/evolution, the counter-allegations that it isn't...on and on. The similarities are quite striking. > With that introduction, what I will now present better be > coherent, I guess. You succeeded. I hope to do half as well below. > In the recent past, the creationists were asked to state > their position. As examples, the CRS doctrinal statement > was posted, and at least three people said that they would > sign it. More recently, someone suggested that the evolu- > tionists haven't presented their position, so why should the > creationists have to do so. The suggestion was not that. Rather, it was that creationists have in fact presented their position, and that the evolutionists should do the same. I agree with this, conditionally. For instance, Ray and Dan in particular have been pretty clear about their position. Lief too. Ron seems to be presenting his position by virtue of posting the "Evidences" series. Evolutionists do not *accept* their position, but it is untrue to say that they have not *given* it. The reason that my agreement is only conditional is that since I have not formulated any specifics, it is of course quite valid to say that at least one creationist (i.e., myself) has not presented a clear position. Still, it remains true that most evolutionists in this newsgroup are much more like myself in this respect than they might like to admit. We know that they believe in evolution, but very little beyond that. I know that this statement arouses anger or disbelief, but when one examines evolutionist articles, very few of them say anything of substance beyond the basic belief that evolution occurred. (That is, very little besides speculative or extremely debatable interpretive comment is offered.) This observation does not apply universally to every evolutionist in the group, but it does apply to a fair number. > Evolution and its > correctness or incorrectness, either or both in its general > explanation of the nature of history and its specific > description of what caused the turns of events to take > place, is independent of the assumption of the existence of > God/a god/supernatural power. It is, or should be, like all > science, a description of what happens/happened, answering > the questions of "what" and not "why." The best > demonstration of its independence from theology is the fact > that it can be accepted by members and nonmembers of all but > the very narrowest of religious organizations. One obtains, then, at best, a catalog of phenomena. I disagree with this entirely. I submit that no one actually practices science without asking the question "why", and if this is true, your formulation cannot be accepted *except* by very narrowly focussed individuals. I also thing the dichotomy between "why" and "what" questions is false to some extent. "Why does the apple fall to the ground" and "what accounts for the fact that the apple falls to the ground" are essentially the same question, even though one is a "what" and the other is a "why". However, accepting the proposition for the moment, let us see what can be done with it... > Evolution, > like all good science, is supposed to make the following > basic assumptions about the rules of the game: > 1. There is to be no appeal to supernatural power; all > forces acting are assumed to be natural forces, and all > deductions are assumed to be the best deductions possi- > ble given the observed facts and our current technology > for observation. > 2. We assume a basic consistency of the rules of the game; > the rules remain constant over time, so that reproduci- > bility of experiments is required. Taking the question of "what" happened, then, look at it this way: (i) All forms of life (except the first one(s)) developed from previously existing forms over a period of time. (ii) All forms of life appeared suddenly on the face of the earth (perhaps not all at once). Neither of these hypotheses invokes a supernatural creator. Granted, if (ii) were accepted, then perhaps many, even most, people would attribute the sudden appearance to such a creator. But that has nothing to do with the investigation of "what" happened, and cannot be helped. What makes (ii) less "scientific" as a hypothesis? It can be investigated, it can be evaluated in light of the evidence, predictions can be made from it, etc. (One may not believe that it is supported by the facts. But that is a different question.) Now, a legitimate objection that may be raised at this point is that (ii) is not creationism at all, or it if is, it is of a rather gutted character, since no supernatural creator is involved. Perhaps so, but on the other hand, it does seem that the most logical inference from the conclusion that life forms appeared suddenly on this planet (could such a conclusion be established) would be that something put them there. Little green men, for instance. For consideration of the origins of life *on earth only*, this is creation. And it does not involve the supernatural. (I must confess that I am not entirely happy with this, however. Who could keep from wondering about the origin of the little green men?) Note that some evolutionists here have claimed that evolution is in fact a theory which is restricted to the origin of life on earth. This claim has usually been made in response to being asked the question of how the universe arose (or some similar question) by creationists. But if one really wishes to take refuge in this response, one must then (by the reasoning in the last couple of paragraphs) admit to the logical possibility of an investigation that may lead to the conclusion of non-supernatural creation. By backing into that particular corner, the evolutionist loses what many evolutionists apparently consider to be their strongest philosophical weapon against the creationist: the accusation of supernaturalism. > Creationism, on the other hand, cannot be so separated. > (Whether it is correct or incorrect is quite another > matter.) It has a quite different basic assumption. Paul > Dubois signs his postings, I suspect, to indicate his reli- > gious beliefs. I do indeed. That shows nothing, however, since my .signatures often bear less of an association to the content of my postings than even my titles! (One might just as well suppose that these sometimes tenuous relationships are instances of the bizarre associations symptomatic of the schizophrenic mind. Ditto the excessive literalness of interpretation of which I have sometimes been accused (concreteness also being a characteristic of schizophrenia). Support for this hypothesis comes from the observations (i) that I used to take a lot of LSD and (ii) that such activity often produces clinical symptoms very similar to certain sorts of mental disorders, such as schizophrenia.) > Dave Brown (I think I got that right) admits > that he accepts creationism on faith. Lief Sorenson has > written a similar statement. That is to say, a NECESSARY > condition for the validity of creationism is the existence > of the aforementioned God/god/supernatural power. One can- > not accept the validity of creationism without believing in > the existence of that God/god/supernatural power as a "crea- > tor." Without a supernatural power, supernatural action can- > not take place. If that is so, then a logical consequence of this in regard to the origin of life in general is that evolution, by virtue of faith in the nonexistence of a supernatural power (or, alternatively, faith in the sufficiency of naturalistic explanation), simply *must* have occurred. Abstract supernaturalism does not (that is, cannot) rule out evolution a priori. Naturalism, however, leaves no choice. It must conclude for evolution. The conclusion is inherent in the premises. So evolution turns out not to be a scientific question at all, because it is not *any* kind of question. It is an inescapable conclusion of a logical proposition. "Laboratories need not apply for this position." Ome may still wish to do research into particulars, but there is no need to pretend that the conclusion has not already been drawn. > This, then is the heart of the matter. All the evolution- > ists have to do to totally disprove creationism is to prove > the nonexistence of God/god/supernatural power. And the > FIRST thing that the creationists MUST do is prove the > existence. This is a good point, and one worth serious reflection. At the risk of sounding obtuse, however, I will disagree with it. One can, for instance, work within a framework in which that assumption is made, without any particular commitment one way or the other as to whether the assumption is true. One may also simply begin with the evidence and be led to the inference that certain aspects of it are most plausibly attributed to supernatural agency. Another alternative, if one is willing to limit oneself to consideration of the origin of life on earth only (as discussed above), is that life was created by an external, non-supernatural agency. > This, after all, is the way that a mathematician > (which I am, some of the time), would work. When confronted > with a particularly knotty problem, one of the first things > to do, before attempting a long and difficult proof, is to > convince oneself that there is some hope. If the necessary > conditions cannot be met, there's no point in going further. > If, on the other hand, the necessary conditions are met, > nothing is proved except the noninconsistency of the > evidence--but we all feel a little more assured that a proof > might be possible. > Now, why aren't the evolutionists going after the disproof? > On the one hand, I have talked myself into a corner, since > it would appear that there is a way to settle this matter > once and for all. On the other hand, this would be a tall > order. How, by the observation of natural forces, making > deductions based on the assumption of the nonexistence of > supernatural power, does one prove the nonexistence? One > cannot. This is an old argument, going back to Descartes. > Scientific methods can neither prove nor disprove the > existence of supernatural power. This is why scientific arguments can make no statement (that is, no absolute statement) that things are not due to supernatural causes. Or due to them. And that is why the question must be left open and the possibility not ruled out. Otherwise one has decided that something cannot be true because it simply cannot be true, according to premises that rule out the possibility. Which premises, all agree, cannot be proved. > Any action of supernatural > power, whether past or present, must only be interpreted as > aberrations in the reproducibility of experiments (or falsi- > fiability of hypotheses, which is the other side of the same > coin) and indicate that one's formulated explanation is not > sufficiently complete, that some relevant variable has not > yet been accounted for. In other words, by explicitly ruling out the possibility of the supernatural, one commits oneself to a view that will inevitably build in error if the supernatural is encountered (an eventuality which cannot (scientifically) be ruled out), a view that will not ever consider whether it might be more prudent in some cases to accept this possibility. I find this profoundly disturbing, even in my occasional rational moments. I do not advocate wholesale import of supernatural agencies into our explanations, but it seems to me that to consciously and deliberately introduce what is known will be a source of error in the event of such occurrences is suicidal. This might just be my creationist knee jerking, but I'm inclined to doubt it. I think that this is a serious intellectual problem with the naturalistic viewpoint. > And why don't the creationists go after the proof of the > existence of this power? The problem I see with the direc- > tion of this discussion is that the creationists are being > allowed to discuss small points and minor side effects, > instead of being forced to prove that they have any hope of > holding dear a valid explanation for the observed facts. > Henry Morris specifically cops out on the scientific proof > of the existence of the Creator in his *Scientific Creation- > ism.* As you yourself observed above, no scientific proof or disproof of this proposition is possible. If you cannot prove the creator to nonexist, then it does no good to observe, as though it puts your own argument at an advantage, that Morris cannot prove his assumption either. This would be exactly analogous to my claiming to have scored a point by observing that evolutionists do not specify their position very clearly. (It is true that they do not, for the most part, but then neither have I, so while it is worthwhile to point this out, I would certainly be in error to suppose that by doing so I gain anything for my own arguments. I have never been under this particular illusion.) > As has been pointed out by numerous anti-creationists, > Morris has started his celebrated document by stating that > his fundamental assumption cannot be scientifically proved. In other words, he has agreed with what you have said. > That is to say, all of science can be brought to bear on all > questions except the one on which all else depends. That's > a neat trick, but it shouldn't hold water. Again using > mathematical analogies, it is common practice when one is > faced with a knotty problem that one cannot solve to change > the problem slightly into one that can be solved. To some > extent this "works" professionally, allowing papers to be > published, tenure to be achieved, and so forth, but it > doesn't solve the original problem. Unfortunately the naturalistic viewpoint starts with the equally unprovable assumption that naturalistic processes and principles are sufficient to explain all phenomena. But how can that be known? I understand what you are saying. Can the evolutionist think the converse thought with the mind of the creationist for a moment and see how the criticism applies in both directions? > The fundamental intellectual and scientific problem with > creationism is that its basic assumption lies outside the > bounds of science, so that scientists don't bother with it, > and that creationists (and the dichotomy is entirely > intended) attempt to define the problem out of existence by > insisting that one must "take it on faith." > Faith, I must re-emphasize, is religious. Naturalism has faith as well, as indicated above: The faith that the supernatural may be ignored and that naturalistic explanations are or will be sufficient. This is unprovable. It too must be taken on faith. If the supernatural does not exist, then of course the inference is valid. If it does, the inference is invalid. The inference in no way helps us to decide on the existence or non-existence. Neither does the opposite inference. > It doesn't matter at all how many nits you pick nor how many > Archaeopteryx can dance on the DNA of a Drosophila. If the > basic creationist postulate about the existence of a Creator > is false, then all that can be done is show that there are > flaws in the current theories. No creationist argument > about holes in evolutionary theory can prove anything about > the validity of creationism unless the Creator can be shown > to exist. As a mathematician you should know that X can be proved by showing that not-X must be false. If life did not evolve (life in general) what else is there? > So, to go back to the issue of what is held to be "creation- > ism" and what is held to be "evolution," I'd be willing to > bet that all the evolution side would agree to some version > of my two rules above (suitably modified by committee to > take into account some points I may have overlooked). Will > the creation side admit that their basic necessary condition > is the existence of a Creator, and that, absent belief in > that Creator, it is impossible to be a creationist? It is impossible to actually *be* a (certain sort of) creationist without that belief, I suppose. But it is not impossible to adopt creationism as an investigative hypothesis without the belief, just as it is possible to adopt evolution as an investigative hypothesis even if one doesn't believe in it. I do it regularly. All creationists should. If evolutionists cannot do the reverse, then I can understand why they find it difficult to conceive of creationism as a valid starting point. But that is their lack of imagination, not mine. It is definitely possible to consider creationism as an abstract proposition with no personal belief implied - EVEN if one personally DOES believe it. This is the heart of it, isn't it? No law is saying that children are to be forced to *be* creationists - only that they are to be given the opportunity to see how the evidence looks from a creationist viewpoint. Just as no law is forcing children to *be* evolutionists, only giving them an opportunity to view the evidence from that point of view. But that is the only point of view they will see, currently. The ACLU said during the days of the Scopes trial that it is sheer bigotry to teach only one view of origins. I guess it's different when the shoe is on the other foot. It seems to me that most evolutionists are simply unable to separate the concepts of personal belief and scientific investigation, when it comes to creationism. Being unable to think in "creationist mode" because they do not personally believe it, they cannot see how it can possibly be worthy of consideration. Even if creationism is *not* taught, it is very *bad* science to teach evolution without presenting the evidence that doesn't fit it very well. This evidence certainly is not presented. Our children are given this nice fairy tale about the horse, and about the peppered moth, and other such examples. They are not told about the gaps, the dismal failures and fakes, the massive difficulties in establishing ancestral relationships, and other blemishes. They get a finished (and hence false in many ways) product...is *that* what is called good science education? Not in my book. It bears little resemblance to the excitement and challenge of science, or to the real status of evolutionary theory. > And > then, is it not clear that we really DO have a religious > discussion going on? Brown and Sorenson admit as much; they > are at least quite honest about it. As Judge Duplantier > wrote, "As it is ordinarily understood, the term "creation" > means the bringing into existence of mankind and of the > universe and implies a divine creator. While all religions > may not teach the existence of a supreme being, a belief in > a supreme being (a creator) is generally considered to be a > religious tenet." Can the creationists on this list separate > their arguments from their religion? I suggest that they > cannot. I can, and do. Regularly. Not all creationists can, unfortunately. This inability of proponents of one side to think from within the framework of the other is where the real political conflict arises, I think. I personally will be more interested in the statements in the last quoted paragraph when it is demonstrated that any of my arguments are religious. I am the falsification of those statements -- Ugh! That sounds pretentious, doesn't it? > Now, a final pair of comments. Judge Duplantier, in his > ruling, said that he was interpreting the Louisiana "bal- > anced treatment" law as mandating the teaching of creation- > ism, since it mandated the teaching of creationism if a sub- > ject (evolution) were taught which could not be forbidden to > be taught (Epperson case). The ACLU in New Orleans tells me > that it is possible to interpret Judge Duplantier's judge- > ment as saying, not only that the mandating of the teaching > of creationism violates the First Amendment, but that the > voluntary teaching of creationism violates the First Amend- > ment, since the Judge quite clearly says that creationism is > a religious belief which is part of the religious doctrine > of specific sects. Well, assuming for the sake of argument that the Constitution says that you can't teach religion in school (although it didn't say that until the twentieth century...(By the way, I'm not advocating such teaching, only saying that I'm not at all convinced the Constitution forbids it)), I would make the following remarks: This statement that "creationism is a religious belief which is part of the religious doctrine of specific sects" is not the issue, and such a formulation of the issue is manifestly false. The issue is not whether a particular viewpoint can be found to be congruent with the beliefs of some religion. If it were, evolution could not be taught, since it is an *explicit* tenet of secular humanism which, according to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, is a religion. (The ACLU does not often mention this.) The issue is whether a viewpoint must necessarily be religious. Evolution does not satisfy this, we are told, and so can be taught in our anesthetic (religiously-cleansed) school systems. Creationism also does not satisfy this. One can adopt a creator as a hypothesis. One can even personally believe *that there is* a creator, without being religious. When one personally *believes in* a creator, one becomes religious. But even then, one does not *have* to approach scientific questions in that frame of mind. Just as one does not *have* to say, at the merest hint of a difficult in a theory, "God must have done it that way and we'll never understand." [Take from earlier in article, but fits in my response better here] > In the recent case in Louisiana, in which the appeal is > scheduled for about July, the creationist side presented > over a thousand pages of argument about the nature of "sci- > ence." I submit that that indeed is the ENTIRE question at > hand here. However, unlike the creationist side, I have to > agree with Judge Duplantier and his summary judgement. In > granting summary judgement, the judge in effect stated that > there were no questions of fact left to be determined and > hence no reason for a trial. All the relevant facts needed > for a decision (as to religious nature of creationism and > its mandated teaching) were at hand. ...it should be clear that I believe there are good reasons for disagreeing with Judge Duplantier. (Even if he *does* have a french name!) ---- I will point out some things that this article does not do, and does not try to do. 1) It does not establish that creationism is in fact scientific. Only that it is not impossible for it to be. 2) It does not establish that creationism is not religious. Only that it is not impossible for it not to be. 3) It does not establish that there is in fact any evidence for creationism. This is a separate question from the nature of creationism. Self-criticism: I found Mr. Buell's article very helpful in crystallizing my own thoughts, for which I thank him very much. I am not completely happy with what I have said, however. The major reason is that I have not succeeded, either in my own mind or in this article, in resolving the issue of the limit of where the "origin" question stops - i.e., is it specific to this planet only, or is the question more general? This can be seen most evidently in the plethora of parenthetical qualifying remarks scattered throughout. I did this to try and delimit the scope of particular remarks, but I fear that this was at the cost of a loss of cohesiveness. "You lose some and you lose some." -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "_Zaphrentis_ fossils are often found in deep water because when | they died they toppled over and rolled off the continental shelf."
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (05/19/85)
Paul DuBois : >Unfortunately true. (I am as guilty of this as anyone.) Just an aside >here: if anyone has access to it, try to get hold of "Is Evolution >Proved?", edited by Arnold Lunn. (Hollis and Carter, London, 1947) It >is in the form of a debate via correspondence, between Douglas Dewar >and H S Shelton. This book is particularly interesting in that it has >a number of characteristics found in this newsgroup. For example, the >struggle to understand what the other side is saying, the stuggle to >keep from misrepresenting the other point of view, the allegations that >such-and-such is evidence for/against creation/evolution, the >counter-allegations that it isn't...on and on. The similarities are >quite striking. What struggle? Am I incorrect when I interpret Dan's argument from design and Lief's appeal to emotion as being non scientific? How about your own statement that you would sign the CRS doctrinal statement, and the one where you claimed that it was an either/ or situation when choosing between evolution and creationism? I pointed out quite clearly that the latter was totally incorrect, and, non-scientific. There has been no retraction of that blunder yet. If you cannot bring yourself to face up to something so blatantly wrong why should we believe that your professed sincerity is real, and that you are genuinely interested in debate. Remember, actions speak louder than words. I would prefer to see 10 lines of scientific reasoning defending creationism rather than 500 lines professing sincerity, attacking evolution, and claiming that both sides do misunderstand each other. If your intentions are as pure as you claim they are, then why not address the "burning issue" of whether creationism is science or not, and at the same time make a statement acknowledging that it is not an either/or situation. This would go much further in convincing me of your sincerity than anything else you could do. I think that the failure to admit that it is not an either/or situation stems directly from the immediate consequence that such a concession would automatically force you to shift from attacking evolution and try to defend creationism as science. If I was in your shoes I probably would not relish the prospect either. (See, evolutionists understand creationists. Now if we could only....) Perhaps I have misunderstood your previous statements that I have mentioned here. If so, correct me. Otherwise correct them. Padraig Houlahan.
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (05/23/85)
[...............] >> The fundamental intellectual and scientific problem with >> creationism is that its basic assumption lies outside the >> bounds of science, so that scientists don't bother with it, >> and that creationists (and the dichotomy is entirely >> intended) attempt to define the problem out of existence by >> insisting that one must "take it on faith." > >> Faith, I must re-emphasize, is religious. > >Naturalism has faith as well, as indicated above: The faith that the >supernatural may be ignored and that naturalistic explanations are or >will be sufficient. This is unprovable. It too must be taken on >faith. Except for the fact that we can actually see natural processes at work, and experiment and test these natural processes in order to learn more about them, thereby providing some basis on which to make decisions other than pure faith. >If the supernatural does not exist, then of course the inference is >valid. If it does, the inference is invalid. The inference in no way >helps us to decide on the existence or non-existence. Neither does >the opposite inference. I think, therefore I am. If God thinks, then therefore He is, yet He may be the only one who knows it for sure. If I see a bird flying, and I can corroborate that vision with other people who also see a bird flying, then we can reasonably assume that a bird can fly. Certainly you can make a case that birds can't fly, you just think they're flying for some reason, but until you can provide sufficient evidence to out-weigh the evidence that birds DO fly there is no reason to abandon the assumption that a bird can fly. The existance of God (assuming it was proven) does not disprove evolution. Some evidence that natural processes are wildly inconsistent might, and that could happen independent of any proof (or reality) of the existance of God. If we are to believe that there is ANY evidence of ANYthing, from the existance of the Bible and its authors, to the existance of evolution, there has to be something on which to base your decisions on existance. Christians base their beliefs NOT on pure faith, but on the Bible, and on the many people who expouse various forms of Christianity. If you had never HEARD of Christianity, never seen a Bible, and arrived at the idea of Christianity COMPLETELY on your own, then maybe it could be considered pure faith. But I would think you would admit, when you are unsure in your faith, you turn to the things that your faith is based on (the Bible, your local pastor etc.), and these are tangible items. Scientists base their faith on observable natural processes, as these are much more useful in describing, explaining, predicting, and experimenting within the framework of the natural processes they are exploring. Scientists didn't always do this however. Science USED to be based on the Bible. Unfortunately, the scientists found that this was not useful in many circumstances, as more and more natural processes were experienced that were poorly explained therein. Many Christians don't seem to have any problem with minor interpretations of certain parts of the Bible, (and particularly in the Old Testament). And, with what I would consider relatively minor interpretations, (Genesis) the Bible dosen't have to conflict with these observed natural processes. I've heard many Christians comment that much of Revelations was written in such that the people AT THE TIME could understand. I would think this same argument could be applied to Genesis. The Fundamentalists however, seem to feel that this might compromise the concept of original sin. Galileo was excommunicated for his evidence that the earth moves around the sun (instead of vice-versa). Yet observed natural evidence has won out. Do we still teach school children that some people believe that the sun revolves around the earth? What would that do to other areas of astrophysics? Would we teach that some people believe that 2+2=5 if it was somebody's religious issue? If we did, what would that do to higher mathmatics? I think it is clear that the Fundamentalists have to make peace with science and admit that they are clinging to superstition. Then they can get on with the business of teaching the moral principles that they are all about without alienating a large percent of the population simply on judgement grounds. The Bible would still seem to indicate that there are penalties for wandering off the 'path' of the values presented there, even without the 'excuse' of original sin. Many Christians have little or no problems with the concept of evolution, only certain ones. Evolution does not prove the non- existance of God any more than proof of the existance of God would disprove evolution. What we're talking about here, is the interpretation of the Bible vs the interpretation of observable natural phenomena. And when you get right down to it, even the BIBLE is observable phenomena. >Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) (05/23/85)
> > [Duncan Buell] > > In the recent past, the creationists were asked to state > > their position. As examples, the CRS doctrinal statement > > was posted, and at least three people said that they would > > sign it. More recently, someone suggested that the evolu- > > tionists haven't presented their position, so why should the > > creationists have to do so. > [Paul DuBois] > The suggestion was not that. Rather, it was that creationists have in > fact presented their position, and that the evolutionists should do the > same. I agree with this, conditionally. Since it has become obvious that at least some people (Ken Arndt and Dan, in particular) don't know very much about the various theories that (at least on this net) get lumped together as "evolutionism", I'm planning to post a description of some of the most important. If and when I actually do this, you should have a better idea just what it is you're attacking. In the meantime, I'll settle for saying that I disagree with Ernest Hua's "natural flow of things" definition because it's too fuzzy to be useful, and also just plain wrong. (well, sort of. But I don't want to go into it here) > > Evolution, > > like all good science, is supposed to make the following > > basic assumptions about the rules of the game: > > > > 1. There is to be no appeal to supernatural power; all > > forces acting are assumed to be natural forces, and all > > deductions are assumed to be the best deductions possi- > > ble given the observed facts and our current technology > > for observation. > > > > 2. We assume a basic consistency of the rules of the game; > > the rules remain constant over time, so that reproduci- > > bility of experiments is required. I have some reservations about #1, mainly because I'm not sure what definition of natural/supernatural you're using. Also it's a good idea to recognize that these rules are results of the need for falsifiability, which is in turn a result of two of the purposes of scientific theories: to make useful predictions (unfalsifiable theories can't make predictions, because if they did, the predictions could be tested and the theory disproven), and to *be* falsified in favor of new and better theories. > Taking the question of "what" happened, then, look at it this way: > > (i) All forms of life (except the first one(s)) developed from > previously existing forms over a period of time. > > (ii) All forms of life appeared suddenly on the face of the earth > (perhaps not all at once). One small quibble here: what does "suddenly" mean? What if, for instance, species tend to appear in the fossil record at times when there are other, very similar species around (i.e. in the fossil record)? Given a reasonably strict definition of sudden, I don't see any problem with either of these as scientific theories. > Neither of these hypotheses invokes a supernatural creator. Granted, > if (ii) were accepted, then perhaps many, even most, people would > attribute the sudden appearance to such a creator. But that has > nothing to do with the investigation of "what" happened, and cannot be > helped. What makes (ii) less "scientific" as a hypothesis? Nothing. It's when you tack a creator on and use him/her/it to explain the observed evidence that the problem arises. > It can be > investigated, it can be evaluated in light of the evidence, predictions > can be made from it, etc. (One may not believe that it is supported by > the facts. But that is a different question.) > > Now, a legitimate objection that may be raised at this point is that > (ii) is not creationism at all, or it if is, it is of a rather gutted > character, since no supernatural creator is involved. Exactly. > Perhaps so, but > on the other hand, it does seem that the most logical inference from > the conclusion that life forms appeared suddenly on this planet (could > such a conclusion be established) would be that something put them there. > Little green men, for instance. I'll agree with this, though this depends on a reasonable definition of suddenly. > For consideration of the origins of > life *on earth only*, this is creation. But it's not what is being proposed by scientific creationists. All of the creationists on this net seem to immediately jump from the assumption that life was put on earth to the assumption that it was put there by God, and not just any God at that, but the Jewish/Christian God. > And it does not involve the > supernatural. (I must confess that I am not entirely happy with this, > however. Who could keep from wondering about the origin of the little > green men?) That would certainly be an inviting area for research, once we had convinced ourselves of their existence. But it is not necessary to know of their origins to investigate their role in ours. > Note that some evolutionists here have claimed that evolution is in > fact a theory which is restricted to the origin of life on earth. Actually, it's restricted to the origin of species on earth, but since closely related theories (abiogenesis) address the origin of life, this is roughly correct. > This > claim has usually been made in response to being asked the question of > how the universe arose (or some similar question) by creationists. Random poke at creationists: If evolutionists have to explain the origin of the universe, surely creationists must have to explain the origin of god? Actually, neither has to do either, it is sufficient to observe the universe/God's existence, and worry about origins later. By the way, when was the last time someone (besides Jeff Seargent) observed God? > But if one really wishes to take refuge in this response, one must then > (by the reasoning in the last couple of paragraphs) admit to the > logical possibility of an investigation that may lead to the conclusion > of non-supernatural creation. By backing into that particular corner, > the evolutionist loses what many evolutionists apparently consider to > be their strongest philosophical weapon against the creationist: the > accusation of supernaturalism. Talk about fallacies of possible proofs! Actually, this is a good time to go into the reasons that God tends not to show up in scientific theories (aside from the fact that the proposer would probably get laughed at. Unfortunate, but true). As I observed above, scientific theories need to make predictions, and theories involving God tend not to because Gods tend to be inherently unpredictable. There are exceptions to this rule, and at the moment, I can think of 3: 1: God could be non-omnipotent. Since this places limits on God's behavior, we can predict him. Unfortunately, if he is very powerful (like powerful enough to create the universe), these predictions will be very weak, and the theory won't be very satisfactory. 2: We could try to predict God's behavior using some sort of psychological model. If the model works well, this sort of thing could lead to useful theories about God. On the other hand, evidence about god tends to be rather sparse, and the creationists keep insisting that God is unknowable by such as us (a reasonable claim, given that he's bright enough to create the universe). 3: We could assume that God doesn't really concern himself with the day-to-day operation of his creation, and only intervenes on very sparse occasions. Sparse enough, if fact, that his influence on the thing being studied can be safely ignored, or treated as a statistical deviation. Note that this doesn't mean that his influence on *all* things can be ignored, just this one area. For instance, meteorologists don't assume God doesn't exist, just that most storms form without his help. As far as I know, *all* sciences (including biology, geology, astronomy, and other "evolutionist" sciences, but excluding creation science) assume that, if God exists, case 3 applies. The assumption may or may not be correct, but if it isn't, no great harm has been done (except for wasted resources, of course). > > Dave Brown (I think I got that right) admits > > that he accepts creationism on faith. Lief Sorenson has > > written a similar statement. That is to say, a NECESSARY > > condition for the validity of creationism is the existence > > of the aforementioned God/god/supernatural power. One can- > > not accept the validity of creationism without believing in > > the existence of that God/god/supernatural power as a "crea- > > tor." Without a supernatural power, supernatural action can- > > not take place. > If that is so, then a logical consequence of this in regard to the > origin of life in general is that evolution, by virtue of faith in the > nonexistence of a supernatural power (or, alternatively, faith in the > sufficiency of naturalistic explanation), simply *must* have occurred. Wrong. Abiogenesis/evolution is only one possible naturalistic theory about the origin of life. Spontaneous generation (certain conditions create certain lifeforms, for instance, maggots arising from rotten meat) and stasis (life always existed in roughly its current state) come to mind, and I'm sure we could come up with more if we put our minds to it. (note: neither of these theories is consistent with the evidence, but that's not what we're discussing here) > Abstract supernaturalism does not (that is, cannot) rule out > evolution a priori. Naturalism, however, leaves no choice. It must > conclude for evolution. The conclusion is inherent in the premises. Demonstrate this, in light of my comments above. > > Any action of supernatural > > power, whether past or present, must only be interpreted as > > aberrations in the reproducibility of experiments (or falsi- > > fiability of hypotheses, which is the other side of the same > > coin) and indicate that one's formulated explanation is not > > sufficiently complete, that some relevant variable has not > > yet been accounted for. > In other words, by explicitly ruling out the possibility of the > supernatural, one commits oneself to a view that will inevitably > build in error if the supernatural is encountered (an eventuality > which cannot (scientifically) be ruled out), a view that will not ever > consider whether it might be more prudent in some cases to accept this > possibility. Have we encountered such a case? How would we know if we were to encounter such a case? (My suspicion is that scientific methods would simply not produce any useful results in areas where supernatural (i.e. intrinsically unpredictable) influences were strong) And finally, what should we do if we ever run across such a case? Run screaming home to our mommies? Ignore it and hope it'll go away? Employ that old religious trick of believing whatever we want to without any way of knowing whether it's even close to true? > I find this profoundly disturbing, even in my occasional rational > moments. I do not advocate wholesale import of supernatural agencies > into our explanations, but it seems to me that to consciously and > deliberately introduce what is known will be a source of error in the > event of such occurrences is suicidal. But to allow untestable theories is even worse, since we (being mere humans) are liable to get it completely wrong, and we'll never know it. If we stick to science, we'll at least have some hope of figuring out that we're on the wrong track. To abandon science on the off chance that it's assumptions might not lead to answers in some cases is just plain stupid, especially considering how well it's worked, and how much we've learned using it in the past. I thought that, as a scientific creationist, you thought science was useful for the investigation of origins. Do you or don't you? > > The fundamental intellectual and scientific problem with > > creationism is that its basic assumption lies outside the > > bounds of science, so that scientists don't bother with it, > > and that creationists (and the dichotomy is entirely > > intended) attempt to define the problem out of existence by > > insisting that one must "take it on faith." > > > > Faith, I must re-emphasize, is religious. > Naturalism has faith as well, as indicated above: The faith that the > supernatural may be ignored and that naturalistic explanations are or > will be sufficient. This is unprovable. It too must be taken on > faith. Perhaps for some definition of naturalism, but not for science. Science operates on the *hope* that explanations can be found. Actually, that's not quite as true as I've made it out to be, but it's still a pretty accurate statement. For instance, when Godel came up with his famous proof that not all true things are provable, he upset a lot of people's beliefs about the power of mathematical proof systems. But people *did* change their beliefs to fit reality, which is not something I associate with faith. > > It doesn't matter at all how many nits you pick nor how many > > Archaeopteryx can dance on the DNA of a Drosophila. If the > > basic creationist postulate about the existence of a Creator > > is false, then all that can be done is show that there are > > flaws in the current theories. No creationist argument > > about holes in evolutionary theory can prove anything about > > the validity of creationism unless the Creator can be shown > > to exist. > As a mathematician you should know that X can be proved by showing > that not-X must be false. If life did not evolve (life in general) > what else is there? See above suggestions for alternative explanations. Also, consider that neither evolution nor creation is an answer to the ultimate question of origins, since each explains whatever it explains in terms of something else (evolution (abiogenesis, actually) explains the origin of life as coming from nonlife, but doesn't explain the origin of the nonlife; creation explains the existence of the natural world as being created by God, but doesn't explain the origin of God). I can see only 2 general theories about the origin of everything: either things came into existence sometime in the past (with nothing coming before, no creator), or things have always existed in some form or another. I notice that these theories are orthogonal to this creation/evolution question you seem to think exists. > > So, to go back to the issue of what is held to be "creation- > > ism" and what is held to be "evolution," I'd be willing to > > bet that all the evolution side would agree to some version > > of my two rules above (suitably modified by committee to > > take into account some points I may have overlooked). Will > > the creation side admit that their basic necessary condition > > is the existence of a Creator, and that, absent belief in > > that Creator, it is impossible to be a creationist? > It is impossible to actually *be* a (certain sort of) creationist > without that belief, I suppose. But it is not impossible to adopt > creationism as an investigative hypothesis without the belief, just as > it is possible to adopt evolution as an investigative hypothesis even > if one doesn't believe in it. I do it regularly. All creationists > should. If evolutionists cannot do the reverse, then I can understand > why they find it difficult to conceive of creationism as a valid > starting point. But that is their lack of imagination, not mine. It > is definitely possible to consider creationism as an abstract > proposition with no personal belief implied - EVEN if one personally > DOES believe it. It is essential in science to be able to investigate theories without either believing or disbelieving them. Personally, I think I'm able to consider the possibility of creationist theories without believing or disbelieving them, but I find it hard to do anything useful with them. They tend to be so full of inconsistencies, both internal and external, and the associated patches that it's hard to develop a coherent point of view and do interesting things with it. Given a choice, I'd rather invent my own creation theories and play around with them. (and what's your theory got that mine don't got?) > This is the heart of it, isn't it? No law is saying that children are > to be forced to *be* creationists - only that they are to be given the > opportunity to see how the evidence looks from a creationist > viewpoint. Just as no law is forcing children to *be* evolutionists, > only giving them an opportunity to view the evidence from that point of > view. But, as far as I know, there is no law forcing children to be presented with the theory of evolution, and if there were, I (and hopefully the ACLU) would not support it. Having the directions of research decided by the government through their control of funding is bad enough -- having them control the *results* of research by direct legislation would be intolerable. > But that is the only point of view they will see, currently. > The ACLU said during the days of the Scopes trial that it is sheer > bigotry to teach only one view of origins. I thought the term bigotry applied only to *unbased* discrimination. Is drinking Coke rather than Pepsi because you like the taste better bigotry? I suppose you want them to also teach the Buddist, Hindu, Greek, Norse, Indian, etc. theories, as well as every theory some backseat philosopher (like for instance me) comes up with when he's had too much to drink? In science class, yet? (well, maybe abnormal psych... :-) > I guess it's different when > the shoe is on the other foot. It seems to me that most evolutionists > are simply unable to separate the concepts of personal belief and > scientific investigation, when it comes to creationism. Being unable > to think in "creationist mode" because they do not personally believe > it, they cannot see how it can possibly be worthy of consideration. Funny, I get the distinct impression it's the other way around. > Even if creationism is *not* taught, it is very *bad* science to teach > evolution without presenting the evidence that doesn't fit it very > well. This evidence certainly is not presented. My impression is that children are taught a very simplified version of evolution, with many of the more important principles left out. And you expect them to include all the nit-picky things that don't quite fit? I've been taking some anthropology in college here, and this is a completely different story. We get a reasonably detailed description of current evolutionary theories and the specific example of the primates, *including* problems, glitches, and open questions. We don't get all the problems Ron Kukuk seems to think exist, but that's because most of those don't really exist. > Our children are > given this nice fairy tale about the horse, and about the peppered > moth, and other such examples. They are not told about the gaps, the > dismal failures and fakes, the massive difficulties in establishing > ancestral relationships, and other blemishes. They get a finished > (and hence false in many ways) product...is *that* what is called good > science education? Not in my book. It bears little resemblance to the > excitement and challenge of science, or to the real status of > evolutionary theory. Strangely enough, I'll agree with you here. I *like* open questions waiting to be answered, problems to be solved, etc. The lure of the chase, and all that. I get the impression that schools are just feeding kids enough pap to keep them busy, and maybe even give them some useful skills and/or knowlege. Certainly that's not the way it should work. However, this really doesn't belong in net.origins (maybe net.kids), and I really don't know much about the subject (except that I got pretty screwed up in the first grade, and it took me years to get interested in learning again). > > And > > then, is it not clear that we really DO have a religious > > discussion going on? Brown and Sorenson admit as much; they > > are at least quite honest about it. As Judge Duplantier > > wrote, "As it is ordinarily understood, the term "creation" > > means the bringing into existence of mankind and of the > > universe and implies a divine creator. While all religions > > may not teach the existence of a supreme being, a belief in > > a supreme being (a creator) is generally considered to be a > > religious tenet." Can the creationists on this list separate > > their arguments from their religion? I suggest that they > > cannot. > I can, and do. Regularly. Then why do you support the Genesis version of creation, when there are so many other options around? Or do you? (support only Genesis, that is) > > Now, a final pair of comments. Judge Duplantier, in his > > ruling, said that he was interpreting the Louisiana "bal- > > anced treatment" law as mandating the teaching of creation- > > ism, since it mandated the teaching of creationism if a sub- > > ject (evolution) were taught which could not be forbidden to > > be taught (Epperson case). The ACLU in New Orleans tells me > > that it is possible to interpret Judge Duplantier's judge- > > ment as saying, not only that the mandating of the teaching > > of creationism violates the First Amendment, but that the > > voluntary teaching of creationism violates the First Amend- > > ment, since the Judge quite clearly says that creationism is > > a religious belief which is part of the religious doctrine > > of specific sects. > Well, assuming for the sake of argument that the Constitution says > that you can't teach religion in school (although it didn't say that > until the twentieth century...(By the way, I'm not advocating such > teaching, only saying that I'm not at all convinced the Constitution > forbids it)), I would make the following remarks: > > This statement that "creationism is a religious belief which is part > of the religious doctrine of specific sects" is not the issue, and such > a formulation of the issue is manifestly false. The issue is not > whether a particular viewpoint can be found to be congruent with the > beliefs of some religion. I'll agree with you here; theories are not responsible for the excesses (:-) of those who espouse them. > If it were, evolution could not be taught, > since it is an *explicit* tenet of secular humanism which, according to > the Supreme Court of the United States of America, is a religion. (The > ACLU does not often mention this.) > > The issue is whether a viewpoint must necessarily be religious. > Evolution does not satisfy this, we are told, and so can be taught in > our anesthetic (religiously-cleansed) school systems. Creationism > also does not satisfy this. One can adopt a creator as a hypothesis. But there is no reason to, unless one's religion tells one to. > One can even personally believe *that there is* a creator, without > being religious. Let me amend my last statement: There is no scientific reason to... I keep wondering what would have happened if someone had used the clause about nondiscrimination against creationists to defend the practice of espousing (and teaching) the theory that the universe was created 5 years ago, as a practical joke, the idea being to see how long it takes a significant proportion of us to catch on. > When one personally *believes in* a creator, one > becomes religious. But even then, one does not *have* to approach > scientific questions in that frame of mind. Just as one does not > *have* to say, at the merest hint of a difficult in a theory, "God > must have done it that way and we'll never understand." I agree, and I wish people would stop saying that. > I found Mr. Buell's article very helpful in crystallizing my own > thoughts, for which I thank him very much. I am not completely happy > with what I have said, however. The major reason is that I have not > succeeded, either in my own mind or in this article, in resolving the > issue of the limit of where the "origin" question stops - i.e., is it > specific to this planet only, or is the question more general? There are really infinitely many origins question, and they are all intertwined to some degree: the origins of the life, the earth, the universe, that piece of paper on the floor over there, and many others. Trying to answer them all at once is likely to lead to headaches. -- Human: Gordon Davisson ARPA: gordon@uw-june.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,decvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon ATT: (206) 527-0832 USnail: 5008 12th NE, Seattle, WA, 98105 Earth: 47 39' 55" N, 122 18' 46" W
neal@denelvx.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) (05/28/85)
****************************************************************************** > > I would like to thank Duncan Buell for posting an extremely clearly > stated and well-written article on the nature of creation and evolution > theory. And I would like to thank you for the consistently well-thought-out and moderate (especially moderate) postings you have given us. (-: Especially for a creationist. :-) > Naturally I have some disagreement with him... If I have one complaint about your postings, it is this: Aside from calling yourself a creationist and poking some holes (real or imagined--some are still in doubt in my mind) in evolutionary theory, I don't have the faintest idea what your own position is. I'm adding my plea that you divulge this information to the requests I've see go before. Before going on, let me clarify my own position somewhat. For the purposes of this debate, I would call myself an evolutionist. By that, I mean that I have done some reading in biology--enough to have seen some (perhaps faulty--certainly outdated) of the arguments for evolution. I also look around and see similarities amongst all the diversity and I conclude that something resembling evolution probably did happen. The ranges of similarity I find particularly suggestive of a tree-structure (in the computer science sense) and I note that evolution explains this tree-structure better than creation and I am convinced. Since I am not a biologist, I take this conviction with a grain of salt (at least). On the one hand, I am not at all prepared to evaluate the more technical arguments on either side. (I am still extremely interested in at least being exposed to them, however.) On the other hand, I am not likely to publish in biology so that if my conviction is wrong, no one is being misled but myself. I have done some serious study of the philosophy of science, however; and it is from that position that I have some criticisms of your (Paul's) posting. > One obtains, then, at best, a catalog of phenomena. I disagree with > this entirely. Not exactly a catalog, a structure. Even by only asking "what" and never asking "why", relationships between phenomena are suggested just by similarities and differences between the phenomena. I submit that this structure is useful in and of itself. Note that this structure may be full of errors or even entirely imaginary, it can still be used to make predictions. If reality matches our predictions, we have a bit more faith (probably a poor choice of word cosidering the newgroup ;-) in our structure and start to use the predictions we can make with it. > I submit that no one actually practices science without > asking the question "why", and if this is true, your formulation cannot > be accepted *except* by very narrowly focussed individuals. A distinction needs to be made between formal and informal science. "Why" questions are used extensively _informally_ and among "friends" to achieve new insights and make guesses about what _might_ be worth trying to look at formally. In this regard, "why" questions are similar to the stick models that some organic chemists use to figure out how atoms go together. When it comes time to present the results to someone who is not already convinced, both the "why"s and the sticks are left at home and more formal presentations are made. > I also > thing the dichotomy between "why" and "what" questions is false to some > extent. "Why does the apple fall to the ground" and "what accounts > for the fact that the apple falls to the ground" are essentially the > same question, even though one is a "what" and the other is a "why". Not at all, "the force of gravity" is a much more satisfying answer to the latter question than it is to the former. > Taking the question of "what" happened, then, look at it this way: > > (i) All forms of life (except the first one(s)) developed from > previously existing forms over a period of time. > > (ii) All forms of life appeared suddenly on the face of the earth > (perhaps not all at once). > > Neither of these hypotheses invokes a supernatural creator. Granted, > if (ii) were accepted, then perhaps many, even most, people would > attribute the sudden appearance to such a creator. But that has > nothing to do with the investigation of "what" happened, and cannot be > helped. What makes (ii) less "scientific" as a hypothesis? It can be > investigated, it can be evaluated in light of the evidence, predictions > can be made from it, etc. (One may not believe that it is supported by > the facts. But that is a different question.) What makes (ii) less scientific is that (i) only assumes mechanisms that science (not necessarily biology but some discipline within science) is competent to deal with. Besides "why" and "what" questions discussed above, questions of the form "how does/can this work" need to be considered by science and/or scientists. A biologist being asked about mechanisms for (i) can go as deeply into the answers as his competence will allow and then justifiably (assuming he knows as much as it is reasonable to expect a biologist to know) refer his questioners to a chemist or a physicist. A biologist being asked similar questions about (ii) will have no where else to turn except perhaps to a theologian. > Who could keep from wondering about the origin of the little > green men?) Indeed! Just to reemphasize the point above, let me point out that a biologist postulating "little green men" would be expected to produce _some_kind_ of evidence. N.B. Again referral to another scientific discpline would be acceptable evidence IF the practioners of the other discipline concurred. > Note that some evolutionists here have claimed that evolution is in > fact a theory which is restricted to the origin of life on earth. This > claim has usually been made in response to being asked the question of > how the universe arose (or some similar question) by creationists. > But if one really wishes to take refuge in this response, one must then > (by the reasoning in the last couple of paragraphs) admit to the > logical possibility of an investigation that may lead to the conclusion > of non-supernatural creation. By backing into that particular corner, > the evolutionist loses what many evolutionists apparently consider to > be their strongest philosophical weapon against the creationist: the > accusation of supernaturalism. Logical possibility is not quite enough. Physics and chemistry support the claims of evolutionary biologists. Non-supernatural creation requires starting at least one entirely new scientific discipline from scratch. > > This, then is the heart of the matter. All the evolution- > > ists have to do to totally disprove creationism is to prove > > the nonexistence of God/god/supernatural power. And the > > FIRST thing that the creationists MUST do is prove the > > existence. I'd have said this somewhat differently (and almost did above). Physics and chemistry provide mechanisms that support evolution, what are the mechanisms by which creation _could_ work? > This is why scientific arguments can make no statement (that is, no > absolute statement) that things are not due to supernatural causes. Or > due to them. And that is why the question must be left open and the > possibility not ruled out. Otherwise one has decided that something > cannot be true because it simply cannot be true, according to premises > that rule out the possibility. Which premises, all agree, cannot be > proved. Science is not competent to make statements about the supernatural even to the extent of ruling it out. Science is competent however to make statements about science: namely that the supernatural is not part of it. If this bothers you, consider it a limitation on science. > Unfortunately the naturalistic viewpoint starts with the equally > unprovable assumption that naturalistic processes and principles are > sufficient to explain all phenomena. But how can that be known? > > I understand what you are saying. Can the evolutionist think the > converse thought with the mind of the creationist for a moment and see > how the criticism applies in both directions? Even Euclid knew that any discipline had to start from unprovable assumptions. One might very well claim that one unprovable assumption is as good a starting point as any other. My appeal in this case is to pragmatism: At the point in history when science was based on supernatural (i.e., religious) foundations the results, although in some cases impressive, were limited. In fact, the supernatural foundations sometimes provided an actual hinderance as Galileo and Copernicus discoverd. Since science has been based on naturalistic assumptions, the increase in its usefulness to society has been dramatic. > As a mathematician you should know that X can be proved by showing > that not-X must be false. If life did not evolve (life in general) > what else is there? This has been disputed sufficiently that I feel no need to add to it. > This is the heart of it, isn't it? No law is saying that children are > to be forced to *be* creationists - only that they are to be given the > opportunity to see how the evidence looks from a creationist > viewpoint. Just as no law is forcing children to *be* evolutionists, > only giving them an opportunity to view the evidence from that point of > view. But that is the only point of view they will see, currently. > The ACLU said during the days of the Scopes trial that it is sheer > bigotry to teach only one view of origins. I guess it's different when > the shoe is on the other foot. It seems to me that most evolutionists > are simply unable to separate the concepts of personal belief and > scientific investigation, when it comes to creationism. Being unable > to think in "creationist mode" because they do not personally believe > it, they cannot see how it can possibly be worthy of consideration. This is indeed the heart of it. I don't my children taught that creation is science for very much the same reason that I don't want them taught that pi == 3.0000 . One thing that I'm still waiting to see is how the evidence looks from a creationist viewpoint. Virtually the only postings I've seen on the net that address that particular issue have been Mr. Kukuk's and I would rather my children be protected from those until they have the knowledge to recognize them for what they are. (You don't suppose Mr. K. is really an evolutionist trying to make creationism look bad do you? :-) > Even if creationism is *not* taught, it is very *bad* science to teach > evolution without presenting the evidence that doesn't fit it very > well. This evidence certainly is not presented. Our children are > given this nice fairy tale about the horse, and about the peppered > moth, and other such examples. They are not told about the gaps, the > dismal failures and fakes, the massive difficulties in establishing > ancestral relationships, and other blemishes. They get a finished > (and hence false in many ways) product...is *that* what is called good > science education? Not in my book. It bears little resemblance to the > excitement and challenge of science, or to the real status of > evolutionary theory. Of all your points, this is the one I agree with. Unfortunately, what the teaching of evolution DOES resemble is the teaching of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and even history which fare no better. > One can adopt a creator as a hypothesis. > One can even personally believe *that there is* a creator, without > being religious. I hear you say this. I'll believe it when I see it. Are there any creationists who are also atheists, agnostics, and/or secular humanists? > When one personally *believes in* a creator, one > becomes religious. But even then, one does not *have* to approach > scientific questions in that frame of mind. Just as one does not > *have* to say, at the merest hint of a difficult in a theory, "God > must have done it that way and we'll never understand." This I do accept from the example you have provided us. Once again I thank you for it. > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- And each one there Regards, has one thing shared Neal Weidenhofer ...And wept when it was all done Denelcor, Inc. for being done too soon. <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal