carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (05/20/85)
Paul DuBois writes: > >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. That is just what creationists do not do. A scientific hypothesis is a statement which is evaluated by reference to empirical evidence according to the canons of scientific reasoning. Scientific hypothesis (ii) has indeed been evaluated in this way. Result: it has been overwhelmingly refuted, according to scientific criteria. It is not the fact that creationism employs hypothesis (ii) that makes it unscientific, but the nature of the reasoning creationism employs, which violates the rules of the scientific "game." On the other hand, the statement that "life on earth was created by supernatural means" is not a scientific hypothesis. "Supernatural" means "beyond the realm of scientific knowledge." This doesn't prove that the statement is false; it simply means that the statement, whether true or false, is not part of scientific knowledge. Hence scientists object to misrepresentation of it as a scientific hypothesis, and object to attempts to teach students in public schools that it is an alternative scientific hypothesis to evolution. Back to Paul: >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. It's transportation, not creation. Not by the wildest stretching of the English language could one say that you were created when you first walked into your home, even for consideration of the origins of life in your home only. The objection to the scientific hypothesis that most life forms were brought to this planet on a celestial ark by little green or purple creatures is that there is not a shred of scientific evidence in support of it, while there is a colossal amount of evidence that the various life forms evolved on earth. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes