[net.origins] How to convert me to creationism

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