throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (05/26/85)
Lines taken from a quote included in the referenced posting: > the frequencies of small numbers of genes, could be multiplied a > theory. The question that should be asked before we proceed to new > "The answer is that it is entirely plausible, and no one has come up > with a better explanation consistent with the known biological facts. > One must keep in mind the enormous difference in timescale between the Paul DuBois comments: > Did you ever hear anything different than this in school? I didn't. > The confidence exuded by this passage is truly a marvel to behold, > particularly in view of the fact that the general conclusion presented > by the excerpt is hardly generally agreed upon. > > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- Hmmmm. "could be", "question should be asked", "no one has come up with a better [consistent] explanation", "one must keep in mind the difference in timescale". Despite the confidence with which the conclusion is presented, it sounds to me like the guy is saying just about what he should be saying... that this is a working hypothesis, and challenging the readers to come up with something better. I don't know about other net.originators, but I never take evolution more seriously than a sort of "current best guess". Granted, sloppy teachers can and do encourage students to take textbook material as if it were handed down on tablets :-), but that has little or nothing to do with quality of textbook material, nor of the issue of what should be printed in textbooks. If and when creationism satisfied the following points, I would be glad to see it taught: - It should explain points of evidence that evolution does not. - It should *at the same time* explain all (or at least most) of the points that evolution does. - It should not be presented as revealed truth. These are exactly the conditions that evolution is perceived to satisfy relative to competing theories that got it to be the preferred theory. Additional notes: (that is, you can skip this boring stuff if you want... I've made my main point already) By "explain points of evidence", I do *not* mean "It pleased God to do it that way". I mean mechanisms are proposed which produce the facts that are explained. I don't even care if you phrase it "God did x", as long as you say *how* God did it in terms of chemistry, animal husbandry and so on, and provide facts that point to God's intervention. There are places where evolution waves it's (metaphorical) hands and says "It just *is* so", and creationism is free to do the same thing at those points, but just asserting something to be true is not an explaination. If anyone means to post creationist explanations, I suggest starting with the first couple of points that evolution started with: - Since there is (fossil) evidence that species arise, exist for a time, and then become extinct, how does this occur? - Why do isolated environments tend to support unique species in numbers that correlate with geologic estimates of the amount of time isolated? (I suppose most (if any) postings will attack the evidence rather than explaining it, but se la guerre. :-) An illustrative example of something that does *not* qualify as good evidence (I am *not* implying that this argument is in fact used by creationists. I *am* saying that *if it were* it would not convince me): Creationism is better than evolution because I have here a fossilized (bone, footprint, figleaf, pelt, tooth, or whatnot) that can plausibly be interpreted to indicate that humans existed 50 million years ago. This would indeed be a blow to evolutionary theory, but would *not* constitute support for creationism for these reasons: - It is likely that the evidence cited in the argument is an isolated find, or a very small group of finds. The preponderance of evidence makes it more reasonable to assume a mistake in interpretation. If an experiment is run 100 times, and 99 times gives x as a result, and on the 100th time gives y as a result, one reasonable conclusion is that something was wrong with the 100th run of the experiment. - Even with correct interpretation, (which is what would pose problems for evolutionary theory) other evidence which was not refuted by this find contradicts creationist theory. - Even then, most forms of creationist theory are contradicted by the information as presented, since most forms of creationist theory require a "young" (or relatively young) earth. Certainly less than 50 million years old. What would make this (hypothetical) find a valid support for recent, simultaneous creationism: - It would have to be evidence for *all of these points at once*: - invalidation of all (or most) dating of fossil evidence (*not* just invalidation of *some* dating of fossil evidence) - Support for the fact that all animals (or kinds, or whatnot) (not just humans, and not just some animals) were present in all eras of fossilization. (Or, evidence to explain why animals are fossilized preferentially.) - *Support* for a young universe (*not* just problems with theory that purports to *explain* the universe) Clearly, other brands of creationism would need other forms of evidence, but I think the illustrative example gives the general idea. Historical note about teaching creationism: I think it is the fact that creationists in the past have excluded evolutionary theory from being taught in school that makes many people reluctant to accept the "we just want equal time" assurance. There is a fear that teaching of creationism is a step back to what are perceived as the bad old days of political and theological dictation of educational content. I must admit I have a great deal of sympathy with this viewpoint. (By "creationist" in the above paragraph, I mean a person in political authority who holds the beleif that Genesis is revealed truth and that ideas which conflict with it are evil. I realize that this is not the usual meaning in net.origins. On the other hand, by "creationism", I mean a scientific theory of the origin of species that assumes deliberate creation by some intelligent agent. It is worth pointing out that most proposals of what should be taught as creationism do not qualify as "scientific" by any stretch of the immagination, and are (nearly as can be told from newspapers) ideas held by "creationists" in the above sense. This lends credence to the fear outlined above.) Disclaimer: It should be obvious that I am not speaking for others. I suspect that many would disagree with my criteria for "working hypothesis" or "explaination". "How to convert me" is, indeed, how to convert *me*. -- Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw