beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy) (05/24/85)
[keep :-)ing] In Paul Dubois's "Response to the Frontline" posting (Message-ID: <1095@uwmacc.UUCP>), Paul made the following comments: >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. >[...] >> 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. An important qualification was left out here. Evolution, by virtue of faith in the nonexistence of a supernatural power *AND* by virtue of the preponderence of evidence, simply must have occurred. The fact is that there is substantial evidence to indicate a more gradual introduction of the various life forms than "one day they weren't there, then there was evening and there was morning, and there they were". Remember that the creationist theory *was* held for thousands of years, and it was supported by some *very* persuasive people (namely folks who would literally kill you if you questioned it). There must have been some pretty good reasons to give it up, and, in fact, there were (are). However, *just for the sake of argument* let's say that the evidence did indicate a sudden appearance on earth of all life forms. Science could still attempt to come up with explanations that did not invoke super- natural forces. One approach would be to investigate the possibility that life arose in other dimensions and, due to some catastrophe in that n-space, shifted its base to the 4-space in which the earth already existed. Now I know that sounds utterly fantastic and just as super- natural as a creator, but bear with me here. Alternate dimensions, like X-rays, are simply beyond our power of *direct* observation. They are *not* a priori beyond nature and natural law (i.e., supernatural), and it is *conceivable* that, like X-rays, we could convince ourselves of their existence based on the effects they exert on things which we *can* directly observe. That is to say, we *can* deal with them within the scientific framework. (Note that science would not attempt to explain how life arose in that n-space until there was some evidence on which to base a theory, so don't try to pin me down by saying "Oh yeah, well where did *that* life come from?". Science (dare I add "unlike creationism"?!) is willing to withhold judgement until there's evidence on which to base it - it does *not* immemdiately jump to supernatural explanations.) Now I'm not going to spend a lot of time building up this explanation, because the assumption it's based on (i.e. that there *is* significant evidence for the abrupt appearance of life on earth) is false. My point is to demonstrate that it's *not* the unwillingness to invoke super- natural explanations that forces (most) scientists to accept evolution. It's the *evidence*. (So if you want to argue about the above proposal, don't waste a lot of time telling me the theory couldn't possibly be valid - argue about whether or not it's scientific.) >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. A reiteration of the same stuff I just (hopefully) demonstrated was false. >> 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. It's also why scientific arguments can make no statement that things *are* due to supernatural causes. That's why creationism, *as most creationists propose it*, is *not* scientific. > 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. There may indeed be evolutionists who say that it *can't* be true. But most of the net.evolutionists I've been reading say that, while it *might* be true, there's no reason to assume it *is* true (i.e. no evidence), and making unnecessary assumptions is just not how science works. Science tries to work with the *barest minimum* of assumptions necessary to support a logical accounting of the evidence. Anything that brings in completely superfluous assumptions is not scientific. >> 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. Again, most evolutionists don't deny the *possibility*. They're just able to come up with a consistent theory with fewer assumptions and much more potential for usefulness. >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. This isn't going to make you feel better, Paul, but you proceed without regard to the supernatural every day in (almost) every way. When you get in your car you trust that no supernatural force will come along and whip your car into oblivion (i.e., a bus :-). When you enter a building you deny the possibility that some supernatural force will obliterate the first floor walls and cause the building to collapse on you. We abso- lutely *have* to disregard the innumerable, omnipresent supernatural *possibilities* to keep our sanity. ____________________________ I'm getting a little confused here myself, so let me summarize my points: 1) Evolution is *not* the only alternative to the supernatural; it is, however, an entirely natural explanation of the evidence. 2) The supernatural is always a possibility. But to introduce it into an explanation when there are consistent (and more useful) explanations that don't require it is absolutely unscientific. (Gosh. All that typing and that's all I had to say. Sh*t. :-) ____________________________ Now for an unrelated issue: > 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. An interesting proposition. *If* there was evidence of the abrupt appearance of life on earth (that still isn't true, but if it were), how would creationists feel about saying that one and only one form of life evolved (either on earth or elswhere in the universe), and then created all the rest? (serious question - no hidden motives whatsoever) ____________________________ Enough for now. Have a good one. -- --JB "The giant is awake." Disclaimer? Who wud claim dis?