[net.origins] Why Creation?

lief@hpfcrs.UUCP (lief) (04/04/85)

     As a newcomer on the net.origins, I was rather surprised with the polite
responses sent to some of my obviously charged wisecracks!  I really was
expecting something more flamed.  This speaks well for the caliber of folks
contributing to this group (at least the evolutionists).  I hope the same
can be said of the creationists.

     Now that I've been initiated, onto serious business.  I'd like to respond
to the thoughtful questions posed by Sidney Markowitz.  Please feel free to
challange any of my statements -- but keep in mind also that I got to get my
work done here too!

WHY I BELIVE IN CREATION:

     So that you can know where I'm coming from, let me state that I was born
and raised as a Seventh-Day Adventist, and still am.  I attended private
Adventist schools from the first grade until graduating from a private
Adventist University.  However, my graduate work was done at the University
of California at Davis.  All through school, I was taught Creation as based
on the first 2 chapters of Genesis of the Bible.  I was also taught the theory
of evolution in school, but not to the degree as Creation.  I would guess that
in public school it would be the opposite -- with the main emphasis on
Evolution, and then Creation thrown in on the side (or the front blank page
as some wise man once said).

     Is it enough that I believe in Creation simply because that is what I
have been taught all my life?  Is it enough that I believe in Creation because
my parents or teachers did?  No!  Every Creationist and Evolutionist must
eventually come to the place where he must think for himself, and analyze
his beliefs.  I must have a reason for believeing in Creation just as the
Evolutionist must have a reason to believe in Evolution.  "Daddy said so" is
not an acceptable reason.

     The scientific method requires that all ideas and theories be tested
and tried.  If the theory fails the test, then either the theory is in error,
or the test is invalid.  Surely one can not claim to be using scientific
methods if he is unwilling to subject his ideas or theories to various tests
and challanges -- or if he is unwilling to change his theory even though the
tests conclusively show his ideas to be in error.  There has been alot on
the net lately about the unscientific methods of various Creationist's groups,
and I would have to agree that the charges are sound in many respects.

     Another requirement for a scientific method is that all preconceived
notions must be removed.  In otherwords, the true scientist must be truly
objective -- this is extremely difficult.  A case in point:  I believe in
the all powerfull God of the Bible, a God who gives life and sustains nature.
Thus, when I study nature, I will undoubtedly attribute many phenomenom to
God's power.  On the other hand, the athiest as he studies nature will
attribute many phenomenom to some natural cause.

     It wasn't too many centuries ago that everything that could not be
explained by natural causes was attributed to God.  Of course, this had the
effect of making God responsible for the good rain which helped the farmers
as well as making God responsible for the lighting which struck church
steeples and killed the bellman.  There was a tragic side to this warped
thinking.  In the late middle ages, society commonly linked inclement weather
and pestilence with witchcraft.  Many believed that witches caused storms,
destroyed crops, and brought on illnesses.  When converted to Christianity,
people began missusing such Bible texts as the one calling the devil "the
prince of the power of the air", and the Mosaic instruction, "Thou shalt not
suffer a witch to live."  We know the tragic results -- witch hunts, burnings,
etc.  In fact between 1550 and 1650 an estimated 100,000 victims were
condemned and sacrificed in Germany alone.  All of this the result of
attributing to supernatural forces aspects of nature not readily understood.
Then, as now, for many in their knowledge of the natural world, God was a
God of the gaps.

     Dr. Harvey's work proved that blood circulates continuously in a single
direction as a result of muscular contraction, and not by some supernatural
force.  His and many other following discoveries rang the death knell for a
whole vocabulary of mysterious phrases such as "innate heat," "animal
spirits," and "pneumatic force."  Likewise, when about two centuries later
the chemist Friedrich Wohler accidentally synthesized the organic compound
urea, he exploded the notion that organic chemical synthesis was unique to
life processes and was not open to explanation.  These and other results
were unsettling to many who viewed such processes as unique to living organisms
under God's control in such a manner as to be beyond explanation.  The result
has been a swinging of the pendulum to the other extreme, where everything
must be explained in terms of natural causes, without the need for God.

     So, after saying the above I must ask myself why do I still believe in
Creation?

     My basis for believing in Creation is because I am convinced that there
is a God who cares about me and everyone else.  Why am I convinced?  Because
I have experienced direct answers to prayer, and have heard too many incidents
of unexplained events happening to others also.  The experience I like to
relate to folks is one that happened a couple of springs ago.  During the
winter my little boy had taken the little bleeder valves off of each of my
sprinkler controllers and scattered them around in the yard.  Needless to
say, in the spring when I went out to get my sprinklers going, I was missing
all five bleeder valves.  So what to do?  I could have driven down to town
a couple miles and bought some new ones for a few cents.  But no, I decided
to challange (or ask) God to help me find these little critters.  That should
be a decent challange, trying to find these tiny black valves in the grass.
After praying right there in the yard, the most incredible thing happened.
It was as though someone was leading me around and controlling my eyes,
because in about 60 seconds, I had found all 5 valves in various locations,
some even in the dirt under the deck.  I was very impressed with a God who
would be concerned with something so minute.  How can I prove it wasn't a
coincedence?  I can't.  However, sometime have your child take 5 small objects
about the size of your little finger nail and scatter them in your backyard,
or toss them out the window with your eyes closed.  Then go out there and
find them in 1 minute.  I submit that belief in God must be based on some
type of experiences such as answered prayers.  If one has never experienced
God in their life, I reckon it would be very difficult to believe in him.
So until someone can give me a good explanation for what happened in my
back yard on that spring day, or why my daughter's blood problem suddenly
cleared up (much to the doctor's surprise) after my wife and I had a special
prayer for her, or why my car which broke down and conked out along the side
of the road (turns out it had a cracked distributer cap), decided to run
again after my wife and I asked God to at least help us drive home, (I
fixed it the next day at home), I have no choice but to believe that God is
alive and definitely cares for folks.

     So do I believe that this God is the author of the Bible?

     The Bible is a collection of many different topics written by many types
of people at different times.  It is also a most intriguing book -- either
folks love it or folks hate it!  If you don't believe that, read net.religion
sometime.  It is also a book of puzzles.  Beware of anyone who claims to
understand the Bible completely.  One wonders how God can call David a 
"man after my own heart", after reading the bloody exploits of David's reign,
his murder of Bathsheba's wife so he could have her, etc.  One wonders how
a God of love could command Joshua or King Saul to completely eliminate whole
populations, including children and animals.  Taken as a whole, however, the
Bible begins to make more sence.  For example, David was not called a "man
after my own heart" until later in life, when he had become a changed man.
The populations which God had exterminated (and I know that is a strong word)
were extremely evil.  One only needs to read the history about the Caananite
people to realize what God was actually eradicating.  They were a people
who had no regard for humanity, killed off their own children as sacrifices
to their so called gods, made prostitution a religeous rite, etc.  In
otherwords, Charles Manson types.  Further study shows that God did not
have these folks killed off without giving them several chances to change
their ways.  For example, when Saul was commanded to go destroy the
Amalakites, God specifically commanded that there was one tribe there he
should spare because they had not been given a sufficient amount of time to
change.  Some folks wonder what side God was on in WWII.  That's a good
question.  This is just a sample of some of the puzzles the Bible forces us
to contend with.

     However, just because I can't understand everything about God, I don't
throw out the Bible and say "it's baloney."  That would be against scientific
methods, as I pointed out at the beginning.  Instead, I try to dig deeper and
find more information.  The book of Daniel is my favorite for this.  One
can't help but be amazed at the accuracy of the prophecies recorded in this
book hundreds of years before actually occurring.  In fact, it is so accurate,
that many critics refuse to believe that Daniel actually wrote the book --
in their view it must have been written several hundreds of years later after
the events had taken place.  But then they are left with the puzzle of how
the author of Daniel knew so much about Babylonian affairs, because at the
time that they would like to have their author exist, there was absolutely
no records available of Babylonian life.  (This is beginning to sound like
net.religion, sorry).  For many years critics charged that the Bible could
not be a reliable source because it disagreed with secular literature.  Yet
archeological digs and the finding of several inscriptions have proved that
the secular literature was incorrect.  For example, Sodom and Gomorrah
actually did exist, Nebuchadnezzar actually was the builder of great Babylon,
Belshazzar was really Babylon's last king, etc.  In otherwords, the more I
read, the more I am convinced that there is something inspired about the
Bible.

     I do not believe in verbal inspiration of the Bible.  I'm not sure any
one does.  Instead I believe that the Bible is an inspired message written
by imperfect men.  One would be a fool to call anyone perfect.  The message
in general in the old testament is that God is in control of the affairs of
this earth.  Obviously, God chose to reveal this message by giving a record
of history, so that one could see how events were somewhat guided by him.
(Obviously, I shouldn't use the word *obviously*, because what may be obvious
to me is not necessarily obvious to someone else).  We also see that God in
the Old Testament never forced his will on folks.  If a nation decided they
didn't want God, they usually go their wish.  So we see a story of Israel
(not to be confused with the present occupants of Palestine) rejecting God,
fumbling around on their own, repenting, and repeating the cycle over and
over.

     Because of the reasons I have stated, I choose to believe that Genesis
is just as inspired as any other part of the Bible.  Again keep in mind that
the message is inspired, not the words.  After all, the Bible has gone through
several hundred years of evolution; phrases and words in the original no
longer make sence in terms of new languages and cultures, thus translators
have in many cases translated words to their own interpretations.  In some
cases words have been inserted to make meanings more clear to modern
languages such as English.  Therefore, reading the Bible requires one to
pull meanings out of the intent of the author, and avoid pulling things out
of context.  In fact, this is a good procedure for any type of reading.
Otherwise, you get folks who claim that the Bible says the earth is flat,
when the actual subject has absolutely nothing to do with the shape of the
earth.  People would laugh at me if after I read a statement such as, "the
prism effect which one witnesses as the sun rises over the horizon", I would
tell folks that this scientist claims the sun revolves around the earth.  Or
a statement such as "economic conditions in the third world..." would be
used to justify that apparently there are 3 worlds, and I assume the size of
earth.

THE GENESIS ACCOUNT:

     The very first verse of Genesis states that "In the beginning God created
the heavens and the earth; and the earth was without form or void."  Reading
this straight forward seems quite self explanatory.  Therefore, as a
Creationist who accepts Genesis as an inspired message, I believe God is the
creator of everything we see around us.  That is all it says.  It does not
say *when* he created the heavens and the earth.  The phrase "the earth was
without form or void" doesn't tell us if God created the inorganic mass
called "earth" right before creation week, or millions of years before
creation week -- all it says is that it was there in a shapeless form when
he created life on it.  This verse also presupposes that God was in existence
before the beginning (before the beginning is an interesting phrase).  Thus,
the Bible does not support a 6000 year age for the inorganic earth or for
other heavenly bodies.  It only supports the creation of life on this earth
about 6000 years ago -- and that is simply an estimate made by using the
chronology of Adam down through Christ.

     Reading other portions of the Bible, one notices that other worlds have
also been created with life by God.  For exapmle, in Hebrews 1:2, "...whom he
hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;".  Also,
Hebrews 11:3, "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the
word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do
appear."  Whether God used the "big bang" to put the millions of bodies
out in space, I couldn't say.  However, I do know that the red-shift
phenomenom is real, so it's a possibility.  Again, one would be foolish to
say that the Bible prohibits the "big bang", because it sure isn't in there.
However, the Bible does state that the original matter was all created by
God -- and that's my position.

     We go on and notice that on the first day God created light, on the
second day he created the atmosphere, on the third day he created dry land and
plants, on the fourth day he created the sun and the moon, on the fifth day
he created the fowls and the fish, on the sixth day he created mammals and
man, and on the seventh day he rested.  (You think God got weary and needed
a rest?)

     It's interesting to note that each day is concluded by the phrase "and
the evening and the morning were...".  The author is really emphasising the
time element here.  There is no doubt that what the author means is a literal
24 hour day.  The fact is, if one tries to interpret each day as meaning one
eon, or years, whatever, he might as well scrap the whole Bible.  I don't
understand folks who think they can arbitrarily decide whether something
is a metaphor or whether something is literal.  The context will tell you
whether something is a metaphor or not.  And there is nothing here to indicate
that this should be a metaphor, so either it's a 24 hour day or the Bible is
a hoax.  Just for the sake of argument, let me assume that each day represents
one eon.  Then, when the plants were made on the third eon,  how did
they survive without sunlight until the fourth eon?  Or how could they have
survived without insects and birds to do the pollinating?  And if each day
is one eon, then how is it that suddenly the sabbath became only 1 day?

     For one who believes in an all powerful God, the abibility to create the
world in 6 literal days in not a problem.  For one who believes in an all
powerful God, but then doesn't believe God could create the world in 6 literal
days, I would ask if they really do believe in an all powerful God.

     It's interesting that light was created on the first day.  Did God need
light to see?  Remember, the sun was not created yet.  In Isaiah we read
about the throne of God, where there is no need for the sun.  (We see this
in Revelation also).  I believe that the light of the first day was the
light of God's presence.  No, I don't believe God needed light to see.  However
I believe that he knew that some processes he was dealing with apparently
needed light (maybe some chemical actions, etc.).  Or perhaps, representatives
from other worlds needed the light so they could witness God's creative power.
Whatever, all I can do is speculate and conjecture why.

     On the second day, the creation of the atmosphere presents an interesting
phrase -- "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it
divide the waters from the waters".  What this is literally saying is that
a shell of water was formed around the atmosphere of the earth.  This is
evident from the next verse which says "the waters under the firmament from
the waters which were above the firmament".  Obviously we don't have a shell
of water surrounding our atmosphere today.  So where did it go?  It's
interesting to note that the original world was created without winters,
storms, etc.  This is evident from later chapters in Genesis.  What effect
would a shell of water (several feet thick) surrounding the atmosphere have
on the weather?  Would it have a greenhouse effect, making the whole earth
temperate?  I'd like to hear feedback on this from some knowledgable source.
Another reason why this verse is intriguing is because we read later in
Genesis 7:11 (Noah's flood) that "all the fountains of the great deep broken
up, and the windows of heaven were opened."  It's hard to imagine how rain
could flood the whole earth, but it's easy to see how the whole earth could
be flooded if God allowed the water shell around the atmosphere to collapse,
by opening the *windows of heaven*.

     On the third day God caused all the waters to be gathered into smaller
bodies of water, and have dry land appear.  Again, for an all powerful God,
who I believe could stop the Red Sea, this was trivial.  Again it is not
the purpose of Genesis to tell us how it was done -- only that it was done
under God's power.  Whether he caused the water to go underground, or he
raised the ground, who knows.

     On the fourth day he created the sun and the moon.  This is an intriguing
situation because we all know that the earth depends on the sun for its stable
orbit.  I have often asked how the earth could have been here without the
support of the sun?  Obviously, we can only conjecture how.  I see two
possibilities: (1) the sun existed previously as a large dark body and God
ignited it as it were, or (2) the earth was here without the support of the
sun, guided by other forces, and God placed the earth into a solar system or
he built a solar system around the earth.  As far as I'm concerned, he
could easily have done either one, or something else that I don't know about.

     What about the stars?  If creation was accomplished only about 6000 years
ago as I believe from the Biblical chronology, how is it that I can see stars
that are more than 6000 light years away?  If one reads verse 14, it says "..
lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and
let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years."  It goes on
to say let them be for giving light on the earth.  Then finally it says "And
God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser
light to rule the night: he made the stars also."  Taking what the author says,
we can only conclude that God created the sun and and moon -- "And God made
two great lights;".  At the tail end of the sentence is tagged on "the stars
also."  The author is merely adding the thought that the stars also were made
by God, though not necessarily on that day.  Had the stars been created on
that day, they should have been emphasised with the sun and the moon.  On
the other hand, let's assume that the author is wrong and that the stars were
actually created on that day.  I'm sure if God has the ability to create stars,
he surely can cause the laws of the speed of light to do weird things.
But to think that there were no other heavenly bodies around until the fourth
day would be contrary to the other portions of the Bible which give evidence
of other created worlds.

     Finally, we come to the fifth and sixth days of creation when God created
the fishes, fowls, mammals, and finally the first man and woman.  Note that
up until creating man, everything was simply spoken into existence.  But when
man was created, God did something out of the ordinary -- formed a clay man
and then gave it life.  This tells me that man was set appart from the rest
of creation.  (Now if you are an athiest, I sure hope you can bear with me
through this explanation!)  As a creationist, I believe that everything was
created perfectly.  If this were not so, then the author would not have said
"And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good."

     The seventh day was a day which God set aside as a special day (like
a holiday) in which man was to celebrate the creation.  Note that this
thought is brought out in Exodus 20:8 (the fourth commandment).  In fact,
that is the only purpose for the sabbath.  I am hard pressed to find any
Biblical reference that states any other reason for the orgin of the sabbath.

     So there it is -- a brief synopsis of what I believe happened.  But,
it sounds like my theory is all based on the presupposition that there is
an almighty God, right?  Exactly.  One cannot believe on creation unless he
accepts the notion of an almighty God.  Can any one prove that God exists?
No.  Therefore, I submit that one requires a certain amount of faith to
accept this notion.  (By faith, I mean the acceptance of an idea for which
little or no evidence exists).  However, it is not a blind faith, in that
I see little things here and there which suggest that there is a God.
(Blind faith would be defined by me as presumption).

     This brings me to my next major topic.

EVIDENCE FOR CREATION:

     First off, let me make clear two very important points.

     (1) Evidence does not constitute proof.
     (2) Exceptions to the rule do not change the rule, but rather remain
         exceptions to the rule.

     Its easy to ask questions.  Any fool can ask a question.  But it takes
real wisdom to answer questions, and I'm not sure I can do that.  One notes
that generally speaking, when you have a debate between evolutionists and
creationists, usually lot's of questions are fired back and forth, and
very few answers are given.  I submit that I cannot prove creation simply by
asking questions which the evolutionist cannot answer.  By the same token,
one cannot prove evolution by asking questions which the creationist cannot
answer.  And yet, we need the questions to stimulate thought.

     A creationist should not be too hasty to think that there is no truth to
the theory of evolution.  There is considerable evidence for the theory of
evolution, just as there is considerable evidence for the theory of creation.
To say there is not a scrap of evidence for evolution is hardly justified.

     Suppose I come up with a brilliant idea.  I then subject it to many tests,
and I find that some of the test show my idea to be valid, and other tests
show my idea to be invalid.  Do I scrap the whole idea as worthless?  No.
I modify it a little here and a little there, and repeat the process.  Suppose
that every test I do gives me negative results, without a single exception.
Do I conclude that my idea is right?

     Creationists have always held that life comes only from life.  In fact,
this is why a creation is necessary.  All evidence points to the notion that
spontaneous generation cannot happen.  According to Webster, spontaneous 
generation is "the generation of living from nonliving matter...(it is taken)
from a belief, now abandoned, that organisms found in putrid organic matter
arose spontaneously from it."  In otherwords, given the proper conditions of
temperature, time, place, etc. decaying matter simply turns into organic life.
This idea dominated scientific thinking until 1846 when Louis Pasteur fully
shattered the theory by his experiments.  Under controlled laboratory
conditions, in a vacuum, no organic life ever emerged from decaying nonliving
matter.  Today no reputable scientist tries to defend it on a demonstratable
basis.  That's why Webster said it was "now abandoned".  No present process is
observed that could support the idea of spontaneous generation.

     Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize Winner of Harvard University, states it as
cryptically and honestly as an evolutionist can:  "One has only to contemplate
the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a
living organism is impossible.  Yet here we are -- as a result, I believe, of
spontaneous generation."  This quote taken from Scientific American, Aug, 1954.

     Besides demonstrating the point that spontaneous generation is impossible,
the above quote also demonstrates something about the faith of an evolutionist.
Creationists need faith to believe in God, and evolutionists need faith to
believe in something they reckon is impossible.  Dr. Wald's exhaustive search
for a scientific explanation ended in failure, as it has for all other
evolutionary scientists, and he had the courage to admit it.  But he also
had an incredible faith to believe in it even though it was a scientific
impossibility.

     Surely, using rational and objective thinking, one would conclude that if
it takes a high order of intelligence just to understand *life*, then it must
take a far greater intelligence to design it.  Thus, the fact that there
exists zero evidence that spontaneous generation is possible leads me to
believe that life was designed by some form of intelligence.

     Wald goes on to suggest that given enough time (say 2 billion years),
even an impossible event is bound to happen.  Perhaps.  However; scientists
still do not fully understand the nature of *life*.  Until it is understood
neither the probability nor even the possibility of its chance occurrence
can be properly assessed.  And if applied to an impossible event, probability
theory would have no application.

     Let's look at another evidence of creation.  Obviously, if all life was
created on earth simultaneously, then one would expect to find such evidence
in the fossils.  Descending into the Grand Canyon for example, one moves
downward past the Mississippian, Devonian, Cambrian, etc. geological stratas
as they have been tagged.  The Cambrian layer is the lowest or last stratum
of the decending levels that has any fossils in it (although every now and
then someone will find a random fossil in Pre-Cambrian strata).  Interestingly
enough, all lower strata below the Cambrian have no record of life.  And yet
the Cambrian layer is full of all the major kinds of animals and plants found
today.  The life forms in the Cambrian layer compare with the complexity of
current life forms.

     This evidence is a puzzle to evolutionists.  Darwin, in his Origin of
the Species, states, "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous
deposits belonging to these assumed earliest period prior to the Cambrian
system I can give no satisfactory answer."  Drs. Marshall Kay and Edwin
Colbert of Columbia University also agree with this evidence when they state
"Why should such complex organic forms be in rocks about 600 million years
old and be absent or unrecognized in the records of the preceding two billion
years?...If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite
fossils in the rocks older than Cambrian is puzzling."  This quote taken from
Stratigrapy and Life History, Page 102.

     Let's look at another evidence of creation.  The Bible states that all
life should reproduce after its own kind.  I looked up the word kind in
Bible concordance to see what the actual Hebrew word meant.  It said species.
However that did not help me any, because Linnaeus (who classified everything)
lived many years after the Bible was written thus it's doubtful that the
author of Genesis new about Linnaeus' definition.  However, it is quite
apparent that the Bible specifically claims that all life belonged to discrete
groups, and would always remain within those same groups.  Therefore, if this
is true, one would expect some evidence to verify it.

     Again, the evidence is found in the fossil records.  Dr. Austin Clark,
in his book "The New Evolution", page 100, describes the picture as it appears
in the fossil records.  "One of the most striking and important facts which
has been established through a study of the fossil animals is that from the
very earliest times, from the very first beginnings of the fossil record, the
broader aspects of the animal life upon the earth have remained unchanged.
When we examine a series of fossils of any age, we may pick out one and say
with confidence, 'This is a crustacean' -- or a starfish, or a brachiopod, or
an annelid, or any other type of creature as the case may be...How do we
recognize these fossils as members of the various groups?  We are able to
recognize them because they fall within the definition of a particular group.
But the definitions of the phyla or major groups of animals are all drawn up
on the basis of a study of the living representatives alone."

     It is true that the fossil record is often obscure with many unsolved
problems.  Nevertheless, the obvious absence of connecting links would seem to
be in agreement with the view of many creationists that the major groups of
living things were seperately created.  There is alot of evidence of change
in the smaller units such as the genera and no doubt even in certain famililies
and orders.  However, there is no clear evidence that such limited changes
compounded would produce new basic types -- categories such as the phyla or
classes.

     When it comes right down to it, species are the only real entities in
nature.  All higher categories are based on the subjective judgment of
specialists.  Linnaeus placed all the varied marsupials (i.e. pouched mammals,
such as oppossums, kangaroos, etc.) in a single genus, Didelphis.  Today
workers usually place them in an order (or still higher catagory) divided into
many families and genera.  One man's "genus" is another man's "family".

     So, as far as the fossil record is concerned the higher categories remain
separate from the time of their first appearance until now.  True, the record
is extremely spotty and inadequate.  But among the countless millions of
fossils collected from all over the earth, I would expect to find at least a
few "transition" fossils if they ever existed.

BUT WHAT ABOUT...

     The question asked often to a creationist is "If God created everything
perfect, then why do we obviously have flaws?  Why mosquitoes and pests?  Why
man eating lions?"  The usual answer is that sin caused all these things.

     I too agree with the usual answer.  Again, since the basis of my belief
is the Bible, my reason for this answer is religious, and not scientific.
Note that in Genesis 3, after sin, God basically caused a change in all nature
(i.e. thorns and thistles).  How he did this would simply be conjecture.
Perhaps he simply removed his sustaining power from the natural laws which he
governs and let nature run its random course.  This brings in an interesting
difference between creationists and evolutionists.  The creationist believes
that random activity will result with random chaos, while the evolutionist
believes that random activity will result with more orderly results.

CONCLUSION:

     While brief (although it doesn't seem brief while I'm typing), I hope
this answers some of your questions -- and I'm sure it creates some.  The
proof for the truth of the creation story in Genesis is not demonstrable.
The proof for the thruth of the theory of evolution also is not demonstrable.
In other words, neither evolution nor special creation can be demonstrated in
the laboratory.  Thus it becomes correct to speak of the doctrine of evolution
or the doctrine of special creation, because one or the other is accepted in
the same way that one decides which religious group he will join.

     As it now stands evolutionism and creationism are beliefs to which
adherents are won by persuasion and not by laboratory proof.  All the volumes
of natural evidences available merely show that most plants and animals vary
more or less as centuries pass, but do not show that new basic types either
appear or have appeared from simpler basic types.

     This leaves the believer in evolution just as much a man of faith as
the believer in special creation.  However, I have chosen the faith in creation
as the evidence seems to side more with it.

Lief Sorensen
Hewlett Packard Co.

ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (04/08/85)

[]
Lief presents a very elegant and persuasive argument in favor
of the Genesis account of Creation, and for the existance of
God.

He, however, seems to miss the point that the discussion here
has been about the scientific nature of creationism.  In all
his large article he presents not one shred of scientific evidence
about anything.  It is typical of the whole article that he says
that he is a creationist because he beleives in a personal God.

I wonder, is he trying to change the direction of the discussion?
It would probably be a wise move for the creationists, since
they have been failing utterly to establish any scientific basis
for their obviously religious beliefs.

js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (04/09/85)

Leif's stupendously long article was quite amusing, but I certainly don't
have the time, nor the inclanation to shoot down every one of the gross
misconceptions he apparently entertains.  I'll just content myself with
dredging this falsehood out into the light:

>      Let's look at another evidence of creation.  Obviously, if all life was
> created on earth simultaneously, then one would expect to find such evidence
> in the fossils.  Descending into the Grand Canyon for example, one moves
> downward past the Mississippian, Devonian, Cambrian, etc. geological stratas
> as they have been tagged.  The Cambrian layer is the lowest or last stratum
> of the decending levels that has any fossils in it (although every now and
> then someone will find a random fossil in Pre-Cambrian strata).  Interestingly
> enough, all lower strata below the Cambrian have no record of life.  And yet
> the Cambrian layer is full of all the major kinds of animals and plants found
> today. 

    Oh?  There are human fossils in Cambrian strata?  Right next to the
dinosaur fossils?  You wouldn't just be making this up, would you?
Did you find them yourself?  Why haven't you reported this find to the
scientific community?  Nobody else has even found any mammals at all.

    Don't the rest of you creationists find it a little embarassing to have
this guy on your side?
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
    "You're from Joisey?  I'm from Joisey!"
    "Which exit?"

mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/09/85)

Thanks, Lief, for your well-written article.  Please understand that my
criticisms here are of your arguments, not of you personally.  With one
exception (immediately following.)

In article <14600006@hpfcrs.UUCP> lief@hpfcrs.UUCP (lief) writes:
>      So that you can know where I'm coming from, let me state that I was born
> and raised as a Seventh-Day Adventist, and still am.  I attended private
> Adventist schools from the first grade until graduating from a private
> Adventist University.  However, my graduate work was done at the University
> of California at Davis.  All through school, I was taught Creation as based
> on the first 2 chapters of Genesis of the Bible.  I was also taught the theory
> of evolution in school, but not to the degree as Creation.  I would guess that
> in public school it would be the opposite -- with the main emphasis on
> Evolution, and then Creation thrown in on the side (or the front blank page
> as some wise man once said).

From this description and your following arguments, I believe you are the
victim of roughly 16 years worth of the fallacy of special pleading.
This fallacy of argument is essentially that you use a form of argument
that you wouldn't allow for someone else's contradictory claims.

Your most blatant use of this argument is in your description of why you
believe in the Bible and creation.  When you cite experiences that lead you
to believe, you are overlooking the fact that similar experiences are
claimed by adherants of every religion in the world.

>      For one who believes in an all powerful God, the abibility to create the
> world in 6 literal days in not a problem.
> But, it sounds like my theory is all based on the presupposition that
> there is an almighty God, right?  Exactly.

When you explain creation in terms of an all-powerful god, why wouldn't
you accept the creation of the universe 5 seconds ago complete with memories
etc. by the all-powerful Ubizmo?  (This particular argument has a name-- the
Omphallos [navel] argument.  Check Martin Gardiner's "Fads and Fallacies
in the Name of Science" for more details.)  Does this illustrate the
special pleading for you?  This is why I'm going to skip your argument from
Genesis: because it is unscientific.  (I have read them.)

I'm also going to skip most of your arguments for belief in God, since
they are not really relevant to net.origins.  I'll be happy to debate
them in net.religion if you like.

> EVIDENCE FOR CREATION:
> 
>      Creationists have always held that life comes only from life.  In fact,
> this is why a creation is necessary.  All evidence points to the notion that
> spontaneous generation cannot happen.  According to Webster, spontaneous 
> generation is "the generation of living from nonliving matter...(it is taken)
> from a belief, now abandoned, that organisms found in putrid organic matter
> arose spontaneously from it."  In otherwords, given the proper conditions of
> temperature, time, place, etc. decaying matter simply turns into organic life.
> This idea dominated scientific thinking until 1846 when Louis Pasteur fully
> shattered the theory by his experiments.  Under controlled laboratory
> conditions, in a vacuum, no organic life ever emerged from decaying nonliving
> matter.  Today no reputable scientist tries to defend it on a demonstratable
> basis.  That's why Webster said it was "now abandoned".  No present process is
> observed that could support the idea of spontaneous generation.

I explained this in a note I posted just yesterday.  Briefly, modern life
such as toads, flies, and bacteria does not arise spontaneously because of
their complexity.  This complexity is required to survive in a competitive
world.  The hypothetical first life forms that arose spontaneously could
be extremely simple because they could survive in an environment without
oxygen, without predation.

>      Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize Winner of Harvard University, states it as
> cryptically and honestly as an evolutionist can:  "One has only to contemplate
> the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a
> living organism is impossible.  Yet here we are -- as a result, I believe, of
> spontaneous generation."  This quote taken from Scientific American, Aug, 1954.

Nothing cryptic unless it is taken out of context.  Nothing dishonest either.
All it takes is thinking about what the first organisms would be like to
realize that they wouldn't resemble modern life much at all.

>      Besides demonstrating the point that spontaneous generation is impossible,
> the above quote also demonstrates something about the faith of an evolutionist.
> Creationists need faith to believe in God, and evolutionists need faith to
> believe in something they reckon is impossible.  Dr. Wald's exhaustive search
> for a scientific explanation ended in failure, as it has for all other
> evolutionary scientists, and he had the courage to admit it.  But he also
> had an incredible faith to believe in it even though it was a scientific
> impossibility.

Your faith argument thus falls apart, once the full rationale is explained.
I won't bother picking apart your abusrd characterizations such as
"exhaustive search, "failure", and "scientific imposibility".

If this is the way you were taught about evolution in your Adventist schools,
I'd recommend doubting more of what they taught you.

>      Surely, using rational and objective thinking, one would conclude that if
> it takes a high order of intelligence just to understand *life*, then it must
> take a far greater intelligence to design it.  Thus, the fact that there
> exists zero evidence that spontaneous generation is possible leads me to
> believe that life was designed by some form of intelligence.

Here we have the classic watchmaker argument.  Which has classic rebuttals:
either the watchmaker must have a creator-watchmaker (ad infinitem) or
if the causal chain can stop somewhere, why not with our universe and no
watchmaker-god.

>      Let's look at another evidence of creation.  Obviously, if all life was
> created on earth simultaneously, then one would expect to find such evidence
> in the fossils.  Descending into the Grand Canyon for example, one moves
> downward past the Mississippian, Devonian, Cambrian, etc. geological stratas
> as they have been tagged.  The Cambrian layer is the lowest or last stratum
> of the decending levels that has any fossils in it (although every now and
> then someone will find a random fossil in Pre-Cambrian strata).  Interestingly
> enough, all lower strata below the Cambrian have no record of life.  And yet
> the Cambrian layer is full of all the major kinds of animals and plants found
> today.  The life forms in the Cambrian layer compare with the complexity of
> current life forms.

If all life was created on earth simultaneously, we would expect to find
representatives of all types in all the layers.  Why don't we find whale and
other extant species bones in Cambrian layers?

Note also, that if you suggest hydraulic sorting, that the above argument
no longer supports simultaneous creation.

>      This evidence is a puzzle to evolutionists.  Darwin, in his Origin of
> the Species, states, "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous
> deposits belonging to these assumed earliest period prior to the Cambrian
> system I can give no satisfactory answer."  Drs. Marshall Kay and Edwin
> Colbert of Columbia University also agree with this evidence when they state
> "Why should such complex organic forms be in rocks about 600 million years
> old and be absent or unrecognized in the records of the preceding two billion
> years?...If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite
> fossils in the rocks older than Cambrian is puzzling."  This quote taken from
> Stratigrapy and Life History, Page 102.

It's plain to see that your education on this subject is not up to date.
Extensive precambrian faunas have been discovered, as well as extensive
evidence of algae and bacteria as much as 2 billion years ago.

In any event, it is to be expected that it would be more difficult to find
fossils of early life than of more modern life.  Early life would be
smaller and simpler.  It might not have easily fossilizable skeletons.
For example, if we wanted to find fossils of the earliest bacteria, we
would expect them to look like fossils of recent bacteria.  It's hard to
find bacteria fossils.  Are you surprised by that?

I'm also not responding to a long and fuzzy argument about kinds, groups,
species, etc. where you claim for one section of the argument that these
groups are all made up and not real, and in another section you recognize
these groups to claim evolution has not occurred.  If you really insist,
I'll address this section in another note (this one is soooo long.)

> CONCLUSION:
> 
>      While brief (although it doesn't seem brief while I'm typing), I hope
> this answers some of your questions -- and I'm sure it creates some.  The
> proof for the truth of the creation story in Genesis is not demonstrable.
> The proof for the thruth of the theory of evolution also is not demonstrable.
> In other words, neither evolution nor special creation can be demonstrated in
> the laboratory.  Thus it becomes correct to speak of the doctrine of evolution
> or the doctrine of special creation, because one or the other is accepted in
> the same way that one decides which religious group he will join.

We see clearly in your reasoning that you have two standards of proof: one
that you apply solely to creationism (special pleading) and bad science
which you apply to discredit evolution and support creationism.  It is the
special pleading that makes creationism a religious doctrine.  Scientific
doctrines such as evolution are based on more reliable criteria.

>      As it now stands evolutionism and creationism are beliefs to which
> adherents are won by persuasion and not by laboratory proof.

It is undeniable that adherants to evolution can be won by persuasion rather
than scientific evidence.  In-depth study leads the vast majority of
scientists to reject creationism and accept evolution.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh

gawilson@watdaisy.UUCP (Graham Wilson) (04/09/85)

Dear Mr. Sorenson:


      I found your posting to net.origins (Why Creation?) to be very
interesting, and it is nice to see someone clearly explain their views.  But
there are several concepts that I wish to discuss with you.

      First of all, your comment that there "...exists zero evidence that
spontaneous generation is possible..." is wrong.  Scientists have long had
ideas of what the conditions must have been like 4.3 billion years ago, and
as such, attempt to reduplicate these conditions in the laboratory (lack of
oxygen, lots of methane, ammonia, water vapour and elementary gases; no
ozone shield, so there was large amounts of energy from ultraviolet light).
Stanley Miller and Harold Urey conducted such an experiment in 1951 (and it
has been repeated countless times since), an enormous variety of organic
molecules are formed spontaneously including sugars, amino acids, and the
nucleotide bases for DNA.  Note that the formation of such chemicals, which
are the building blocks (so to speak) of life, was shown to be almost
inevitable.  Admittedly, they have not gotten any actual life to form (life
defined as a macromolecule which can reduplictae itself - i.e. the phage
X174 which is only 5375 units (nucleotides) long), but they have come very
close (note that the formation of life according to evolutionary/geological
theory took several hundred million years).  So you should be careful when
you say that there is absolutely no evidence for the spontaneous formation
of life.

      Another gripe is that you and other creationists dont really
understand the constraints of science.  One of the major aspects of a
scientific theory is that it be "falsifiable".  That is, a good theory
doesn't merely explain everything; it specifically predicts that certain
observations, if made, would prove the theory wrong.  It is this aspect that
keeps astrology out of the realm of science.  If a theory or concept cannot
be disproven (i.e. that evil spirits cause disease and just make it look
like germs), then it is not science!

      Obviously, the study of God (etc.) is not in the realm of science,
because the existance of God is neither provable nor disprovable (the bottom
line is faith).  Consequently, any theory that makes use of an omnipotent
supreme being cannot be considered science, because it fails to be 
falsifiable.  

      If the falsifiability constraint was removed from science, then
science would be a crock.  Every man and his dog whould submit theories on
the origin of man and the universe which referred to the supernatural for
support to explain everything (I could invent 10 a day if you wish), and
hence could not be disproved.  There would not be enough time in the day to
give "equal time" to all theories (do you want your children being taught
that astrology is a valid scientific theorem simply because it cannot be
disproved?).

      I hope you see the point Lief.  Evoluton on the otherhand, is
disprovable (it is just that the evidence to disprove it has not been
found).  It does not presuppose the existance or non-existance of anything
supernatural, because such factors do not affect what the theory predicts.

      All of my information was taken from the book "Science on Trial (The
Case for Evolution)" by Douglas J. Futuyma.  It is published by Pantheon
Books in New York.  It is a very well written book for the layman in biology
(i.e. me - I'm a programmer, not a biologist), who would like to know what
is the evidence for evolution.  It also contains a very good essay on the
definition of science (from which I drew most of my information). I strongly
suggest that you read it Lief, it could help clarify some of your views
(this is meant to be friendly - not sarcastic).

      One final point, I hope the information here showed why "creationism"
is not science (again, refer to the above mentioned publication for a more
detailed discussion).  Consequently, if it was taught in schools as science,
it would be nothing more than bringing religion into the classroom.
Americans criticize the Iranians for their fanaticism and the connection
between chuch and state.  It the U.S. starts teaching religion in the
school, where's the difference?

Graham Wilson
University of Waterloo

-- note the lack of anti-religious quotes from L.L. --

keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (04/10/85)

[.............]
>     This leaves the believer in evolution just as much a man of faith as
>the believer in special creation. However, I have chosen the faith in creation
>as the evidence seems to side more with it.

>Lief Sorensen

I disagree.  However, much of this disagreement probably exists in our
definitions of 'Science'.  Evolution holds up much better than creation
when you look at things like: falsifiability, ability to make predictions
etc.  I suppose you could make a case that the sun is only 2 million miles
away instead of 93, and much smaller, and that you believe it is true.
I suppose you could then call this a religious belief, and that any
other estimates of the distance of the sun are also religious beliefs.
Certainly we have not traveled to the sun and measured the distance directly.
However, by using scientific principles that have proven to be true when
applied to similar environments that we can test and measure, so we
certainly have better evidence that the sun is actually 93 million miles
away.  Does this mean that we should teach our children with 'equal time'
and that some people believe that the sun is only 2 million miles away?
(that the earth is flat? etc.)

I have no objection to you believing what you like, just don't try to
pass it off as science.  Similarly, your efforts to argue that evolution
is not science either (if that's what you were getting at) rest on several
points that indicate little understanding of science or evolution.  And,
if you are trying to argue that science=religion, again I disagree.

If the bottom line is, you are arguing for 'equal time' then I must propose
this:

1.  The universe was created 5 minutes ago.

2.  It was created by a panel of 3 gods named Wilbur, Jack and Fred.

3.  They are all powerful, and created a 'fully operational' universe.

4.  Since they are all powerful, it only took them 12 seconds. (they only
    had to warm up)

Now.  Tell me why this belief is not EVERY BIT as valid as the Creationist
account and shouldn't also receive 'equal time' in the schools along with
Evolution and Creation.

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
"You'll PAY to know what you REALLY think!"

P.S.  A question on the literal 'day' of genesis.  If I'm on the moon, or
on the surface of another planet, what does 'day' mean and why?

johnston@spp1.UUCP (Micheal L. Johnston) (04/11/85)

> [.............]
> >     This leaves the believer in evolution just as much a man of faith as
> >the believer in special creation. However, I have chosen the faith in creation
> >as the evidence seems to side more with it.
> 
> >Lief Sorensen
> 
> I disagree.  However, much of this disagreement probably exists in our
> definitions of 'Science'.  Evolution holds up much better than creation
> when you look at things like: falsifiability, ability to make predictions
> etc.  I suppose you could make a case that the sun is only 2 million miles
> away instead of 93, and much smaller, and that you believe it is true.
> I suppose you could then call this a religious belief, and that any
> other estimates of the distance of the sun are also religious beliefs.
> Certainly we have not traveled to the sun and measured the distance directly.
> However, by using scientific principles that have proven to be true when
> applied to similar environments that we can test and measure, so we
> certainly have better evidence that the sun is actually 93 million miles
> away.  Does this mean that we should teach our children with 'equal time'
> and that some people believe that the sun is only 2 million miles away?
> (that the earth is flat? etc.)
> 

Evolution and Creation cannot even be compared. Creation deals with how
everything came to be. Evolution concerns an ongoing process. Creation
should be compared with an origins theory which may or may not use
evolution as support. 

And no origins theory can be proved or falsified, which according to my
definitions (you're allowed to differ) makes them both non-theories, more
or less models that evidence can support but never prove or disprove.

Now the distance to the sun can be proved or disproved since it's there
now and you won't find many who will cling to a wrong theory about
something that exists and can be measured.

> 
> If the bottom line is, you are arguing for 'equal time' then I must propose
> this:
> 
> 1.  The universe was created 5 minutes ago.
> 
> 2.  It was created by a panel of 3 gods named Wilbur, Jack and Fred.
> 
> 3.  They are all powerful, and created a 'fully operational' universe.
> 
> 4.  Since they are all powerful, it only took them 12 seconds. (they only
>     had to warm up)
> 
> Now.  Tell me why this belief is not EVERY BIT as valid as the Creationist
> account and shouldn't also receive 'equal time' in the schools along with
> Evolution and Creation.
> 
> Keith Doyle
> #  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
> "You'll PAY to know what you REALLY think!"
> 

Normally I would say that any origins 'theory' you wanted to come up with
is as vaild as creation (or any other origins model) in terms of its
qualifications as a model. A model can say whatever it wants. The trick is
to make reasonable enough to be believed. I honestly believe, if you have
another idea on how everything came to be, and if you get a movement
behind, produce textbooks and teaching aids, you should be able to present
your views in the school system.
Your proposal above deals with an origin theory that differs from the rest
in that it can be verified, occurring after recorded history.

		Mike Johnston

Keebler@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Keebler) (04/12/85)

___________________________________________________________________

> { from: Lief Sorensen, Hewlett Packard Co. }
> ...
>
> WHY I BELIVE IN CREATION:
>
>      So that you can know where I'm coming  from,  let  me  state
> that  I was born and raised as a Seventh-Day Adventist, and still
> am.  I attended private Adventist schools from  the  first  grade
> until  graduating  from a private Adventist University.  However,
> my graduate work was done at  the  University  of  California  at
> Davis.  All through school, I was taught Creation as based on the
> first 2 chapters of Genesis of the Bible.  I was also taught  the
> theory of evolution in school, but not to the degree as Creation.
> I would guess that in public school it would be the  opposite  --
> with  the main emphasis on Evolution, and then Creation thrown in
> on the side (or the front blank page as some wise man once said).

Your background is well reflected in your prolific essay.  Quite
commendable considering the lack of willingness for many to admit
the influence of their religious backgrounds.

>      Is it enough that I believe in Creation simply because  that
> is  what I have been taught all my life?  Is it enough that I be-
> lieve in Creation because my parents or teachers did?  No!  Every
> Creationist  and  Evolutionist  must eventually come to the place
> where he must think for himself, and analyze his beliefs.  I must
> have a reason for believeing in Creation just as the Evolutionist
> must have a reason to believe in Evolution.  "Daddy said  so"  is
> not an acceptable reason.

I couldn't have said it better.  (You can bet your life this agree-
ment ain't gonna last too much further.)

> ...
>
>      Another requirement for a  scientific  method  is  that  all
> preconceived  notions  must  be removed.  In otherwords, the true
> scientist must be truly objective -- this is extremely difficult.
> A  case  in point:  I believe in the all powerfull God of the Bi-
> ble, a God who gives life and  sustains  nature.   Thus,  when  I
> study  nature,  I  will  undoubtedly attribute many phenomenom to
> God's power.  On the other hand, the athiest as he studies nature
> will attribute many phenomenom to some natural cause.

You seem to be suggesting that everyone's preconceived notions are
invalid, when objectivity is concerned.  That is not so accurate.
Certain assumptions are valid in appropriate contexts.  In science,
the independence of nature is quite appropriate and necessary.  You
cannot explain anything in science via supernatural means.  (A sim-
ple example would be "God willed it to be so."  This is a pseudoex-
planation in science.  It may be valid elsewhere, but certainly not
in science.)

>      It wasn't too many centuries ago that everything that  could
> not  be  explained  by  natural causes was attributed to God.  Of
> course, this had the effect of making  God  responsible  for  the
> good  rain which helped the farmers as well as making God respon-
> sible for the lighting which struck church  steeples  and  killed
> the  bellman.   There  was a tragic side to this warped thinking.
> In the late middle ages, society commonly linked inclement weath-
> er  and  pestilence  with witchcraft.  Many believed that witches
> caused storms, destroyed crops, and brought on  illnesses.   When
> converted  to  Christianity,  people  began  missusing such Bible
> texts as the one calling the devil "the prince of  the  power  of
> the  air",  and  the Mosaic instruction, "Thou shalt not suffer a
> witch to live."  We know the tragic results -- witch hunts, burn-
> ings,  etc.   In  fact between 1550 and 1650 an estimated 100,000
> victims were condemned and sacrificed in Germany alone.   All  of
> this  the result of attributing to supernatural forces aspects of
> nature not readily understood.  Then, as now, for many  in  their
> knowledge of the natural world, God was a God of the gaps.
>
>      Dr. Harvey's work proved that blood circulates  continuously
> in  a  single  direction as a result of muscular contraction, and
> not by some supernatural force.  His  and  many  other  following
> discoveries  rang  the death knell for a whole vocabulary of mys-
> terious phrases such as  "innate  heat,"  "animal  spirits,"  and
> "pneumatic  force."  Likewise, when about two centuries later the
> chemist Friedrich Wohler  accidentally  synthesized  the  organic
> compound  urea, he exploded the notion that organic chemical syn-
> thesis was unique to life processes and was not open to  explana-
> tion.  These and other results were unsettling to many who viewed
> such processes as unique to living organisms under God's  control
> in  such  a  manner  as to be beyond explanation.  The result has
> been a swinging of the  pendulum  to  the  other  extreme,  where
> everything  must be explained in terms of natural causes, without
> the need for God.
>
>      So, after saying the above I must ask myself why do I  still
> believe in Creation?

That IS the question, isn't it?

>      My basis for believing in Creation is because I am convinced
> that there is a God who cares about me and everyone else.  Why am
> I convinced?   Because  I  have  experienced  direct  answers  to
> prayer,  and  have heard too many incidents of unexplained events
> happening to others also.  The experience I  like  to  relate  to
> folks  is  one that happened a couple of springs ago.  During the
> winter my little boy had taken the little bleeder valves  off  of
> each of my sprinkler controllers and scattered them around in the
> yard.  Needless to say, in the spring when I went out to  get  my
> sprinklers going, I was missing all five bleeder valves.  So what
> to do?  I could have driven down  to  town  a  couple  miles  and
> bought some new ones for a few cents.  But no, I decided to chal-
> lange (or ask) God to help me find these little  critters.   That
> should  be  a  decent  challange, trying to find these tiny black
> valves in the grass.  After praying right there in the yard,  the
> most  incredible  thing  happened.   It was as though someone was
> leading me around and controlling my eyes, because  in  about  60
> seconds, I had found all 5 valves in various locations, some even
> in the dirt under the deck.  I was very impressed with a God  who
> would  be concerned with something so minute.  How can I prove it
> wasn't a coincedence?  I  can't.   However,  sometime  have  your
> child  take  5 small objects about the size of your little finger
> nail and scatter them in your backyard, or toss them out the win-
> dow  with your eyes closed.  Then go out there and find them in 1
> minute.  I submit that belief in God must be based on  some  type
> of  experiences  such  as answered prayers.  If one has never ex-
> perienced God in their life, I reckon it would be very  difficult
> to  believe in him.  So until someone can give me a good explana-
> tion for what happened in my back yard on that spring day, or why
> my  daughter's  blood  problem  suddenly  cleared up (much to the
> doctor's surprise) after my wife and I had a special  prayer  for
> her, or why my car which broke down and conked out along the side
> of the road (turns out it had a cracked distributer cap), decided
> to  run  again  after my wife and I asked God to at least help us
> drive home, (I fixed it the next day at home), I have  no  choice
> but to believe that God is alive and definitely cares for folks.

Okay.  But this is a religious/theological/personal-subjective sup-
port of your belief.  You have not mentioned scientific evidence to
support any of your incidents, that, incidentally, still could not
have support anything supernatural.

> ...  (By faith, I mean the acceptance  of  an  idea  for
> which  little or no evidence exists).  However, it is not a blind
> faith, in that I see little things here and there  which  suggest
> that  there  is  a  God.   (Blind faith would be defined by me as
> presumption).

Here the Rich Rosen question:  You provided support for your beliefs
via incidents which you interprete in a certain way due to your be-
liefs.  I am suggesting that you have employed the exact circular
logic that Rich writes about in net.religion.  So, which DID you
begin with?  faith?  logic?

>      This brings me to my next major topic.
>
> EVIDENCE FOR CREATION:
> ...
>
>      A creationist should not be too hasty to think that there is
> no  truth to the theory of evolution.  There is considerable evi-
> dence for the theory of evolution, just as there is  considerable
> evidence for the theory of creation.  To say there is not a scrap
> of evidence for evolution is hardly justified.

That is quite true.  Now if we can only convince the other creationists ...

>      Suppose I come up with a brilliant idea.  I then subject  it
> to  many  tests, and I find that some of the test show my idea to
> be valid, and other tests show my idea to be invalid.  Do I scrap
> the  whole idea as worthless?  No.  I modify it a little here and
> a little there, and repeat the process.  Suppose that every  test
> I do gives me negative results, without a single exception.  Do I
> conclude that my idea is right?

Certainly not.  (I am assuming that that is your obvious answer.)

>      Creationists have always held  that  life  comes  only  from
> life.   In  fact,  this is why a creation is necessary.  All evi-
> dence points to the notion  that  spontaneous  generation  cannot
> happen.   According  to  Webster,  spontaneous generation is "the
> generation of living from nonliving matter...(it is taken) from a
> belief,  now  abandoned,  that  organisms found in putrid organic
> matter arose spontaneously from it."  In  otherwords,  given  the
> proper  conditions  of  temperature,  time,  place, etc. decaying
> matter simply turns  into  organic  life.   This  idea  dominated
> scientific thinking until 1846 when Louis Pasteur fully shattered
> the theory by his experiments.  Under controlled laboratory  con-
> ditions,  in a vacuum, no organic life ever emerged from decaying
> nonliving matter.  Today no reputable scientist tries  to  defend
> it  on  a  demonstratable  basis.  That's why Webster said it was
> "now abandoned".  No present process is observed that could  sup-
> port the idea of spontaneous generation.
>
>      Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize Winner of  Harvard  University,
> states  it  as  cryptically  and honestly as an evolutionist can:
> "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task  to  con-
> cede  that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is im-
> possible.  Yet here we are -- as a result, I  believe,  of  spon-
> taneous  generation."  This quote taken from Scientific American,
> Aug, 1954.
>
>      Besides demonstrating the point that spontaneous  generation
> is  impossible, the above quote also demonstrates something about
> the faith of an evolutionist.  Creationists need faith to believe
> in God, and evolutionists need faith to believe in something they
> reckon is impossible.  Dr. Wald's exhaustive search for a  scien-
> tific  explanation ended in failure, as it has for all other evo-
> lutionary scientists, and he had the courage to admit it.  But he
> also  had an incredible faith to believe in it even though it was
> a scientific impossibility.

First, I would like to see the context of this quote.  Second, you
have made the grave mistake of bringing up faith.  A scientist will
have to abandon his faiths in face of evidence.  If I see your
point correctly, you seem to be suggesting that Dr. Wald is saying
that we are the result of some pile of putrid matter.  Poetically
licensed, he may say such a thing.  However, in a scientific con-
text, he is grossly irresponsible.  I personally think that you
probably misquoted him.  Spontaneous generation is not the same as
the processes of our evolution.  (Any high biology textbook can in-
form you on some important details of the theories of spontaneous
generation.  Just the basic time scale alone is completely different
from biological evolution.)

>      Surely, using rational and  objective  thinking,  one  would
> conclude  that  if  it takes a high order of intelligence just to
> understand *life*, then it must take a far  greater  intelligence
> to  design  it.   Thus,  the fact that there exists zero evidence
> that spontaneous generation is possible leads me to believe  that
> life was designed by some form of intelligence.

Once again, spontaneous generation is not the same as evolution.  I
am surprised that you still bring up the old design argument.  Your
subjective opinions on design is hardly scientific evidence.

>      Wald goes on to suggest that given enough time (say  2  bil-
> lion  years),  even  an  impossible  event  is  bound  to happen.
> Perhaps.  However; scientists still do not fully  understand  the
> nature of *life*.  Until it is understood neither the probability
> nor even the possibility of its chance occurrence can be properly
> assessed.   And  if  applied  to an impossible event, probability
> theory would have no application.

It is quite obvious that you have already concluded to some degree,
that life is beyond the understanding of scientists.  Other than
that, your paragraph does not provide anything to properly support
your assertions.

>      Let's look at another evidence of creation.   Obviously,  if
> all  life was created on earth simultaneously, then one would ex-
> pect to find such evidence in the fossils.  Descending  into  the
> Grand  Canyon for example, one moves downward past the Mississip-
> pian, Devonian, Cambrian, etc. geological stratas  as  they  have
> been tagged.  The Cambrian layer is the lowest or last stratum of
> the decending levels that has any fossils in it  (although  every
> now  and  then  someone will find a random fossil in Pre-Cambrian
> strata).  Interestingly enough, all lower strata below  the  Cam-
> brian have no record of life.  And yet the Cambrian layer is full
> of all the major kinds of animals and plants  found  today.   The
> life  forms  in the Cambrian layer compare with the complexity of
> current life forms.
>
>      This evidence is a puzzle to evolutionists.  Darwin, in  his
> Origin  of  the  Species,  states, "To the question why we do not
> find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed  ear-
> liest period prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfac-
> tory answer."  Drs. Marshall Kay and Edwin  Colbert  of  Columbia
> University  also  agree  with  this evidence when they state "Why
> should such complex organic forms be in rocks about  600  million
> years  old  and  be  absent or unrecognized in the records of the
> preceding two billion years?...If there  has  been  evolution  of
> life,  the  absence  of  the requisite fossils in the rocks older
> than Cambrian is puzzling."  This quote  taken  from  Stratigrapy
> and Life History, Page 102.h

Another creationist flaw:  You cannot easily justify using the AB-
SENCE of evidence as evidence itself.  Absence of evidence simply
makes the theory which depends upon the evidence questionable.  It
does not, by any means, support other theories.

>      Let's look at  another  evidence  of  creation.   The  Bible
> states  that  all  life  should  reproduce after its own kind.  I
> looked up the word kind in Bible concordance to see what the  ac-
> tual  Hebrew  word meant.  It said species.  However that did not
> help me any, because Linnaeus (who classified  everything)  lived
> many  years  after  the Bible was written thus it's doubtful that
> the author of Genesis new about Linnaeus'  definition.   However,
> it  is quite apparent that the Bible specifically claims that all
> life belonged to discrete groups, and would always remain  within
> those  same groups.  Therefore, if this is true, one would expect
> some evidence to verify it.
>
>      Again, the evidence is found in  the  fossil  records.   Dr.
> Austin  Clark,  in  his  book  "The  New  Evolution",  page  100,
> describes the picture as it appears in the fossil records.   "One
> of  the  most  striking  and important facts which has been esta-
> blished through a study of the fossil animals is  that  from  the
> very earliest times, from the very first beginnings of the fossil
> record, the broader aspects of the animal  life  upon  the  earth
> have  remained unchanged.  When we examine a series of fossils of
> any age, we may pick out one and say with confidence, 'This is  a
> crustacean'  -- or a starfish, or a brachiopod, or an annelid, or
> any other type of creature as the case may be...How do we  recog-
> nize these fossils as members of the various groups?  We are able
> to recognize them because they fall within the  definition  of  a
> particular  group.   But  the  definitions  of the phyla or major
> groups of animals are all drawn up on the basis of a study of the
> living representatives alone."
>
>      It is true that the fossil record is often obscure with many
> unsolved problems.  Nevertheless, the obvious absence of connect-
> ing links would seem to be in agreement with  the  view  of  many
> creationists   that  the  major  groups  of  living  things  were
> seperately created.  There is alot of evidence of change  in  the
> smaller  units  such  as  the genera and no doubt even in certain
> famililies and orders.  However, there is no clear evidence  that
> such  limited changes compounded would produce new basic types --
> categories such as the phyla or classes.

You say "limited".  I now ask you, "limited by what?"  You do real-
ize that the current classification system used by biologists is a
hierarchy of categories that help biologists analyze all known liv-
ing things.  Creationists do not consider the existence of basic
type unless there are NO in-betweens.  Thus, by definition, they
have made "kinds" absolute.  Thus, if there are people with noses
of all different sizes, then people in general are the same kind.
But if the people with the intermediate size noses die out, then
two new kinds emerge:  ones with large noses, and ones with small
noses.  This is a sloppy example, but the point is that with the
two new kinds, creationists will insist that people were separately
created as big-nosed and little-nosed and that people with inter-
mediate size noses never existed.

>      When it comes right down to it, species are  the  only  real
> entities  in nature.  All higher categories are based on the sub-
> jective judgment of specialists.  Linnaeus placed all the  varied
> marsupials  (i.e.  pouched mammals, such as oppossums, kangaroos,
> etc.) in a single genus, Didelphis.  Today workers usually  place
> them  in  an  order  (or still higher catagory) divided into many
> families and genera.  One man's "genus" is another  man's  "fami-
> ly".

There is nothing to justifiy your claim that species are the only
"real entities".  In addition, you would not classify a bacteria
with an elephant.  The classification hierarchy is not whimsical,
as you so suggest.

>      So, as far as the fossil  record  is  concerned  the  higher
> categories  remain  separate from the time of their first appear-
> ance until now.  True, the record is extremely spotty and  inade-
> quate.   But  among  the  countless millions of fossils collected
> from all over the earth, I would expect to find at  least  a  few
> "transition" fossils if they ever existed.

Refer to the last comment ...  The basic question is:  What is your
definition of a transitional fossil?  And what part of this defini-
tion will prevent you from considering the transitional form as a
separate "kind", thus creating two gaps where there was one?

> BUT WHAT ABOUT...
>
>      The question asked often to a creationist is "If God created
> everything  perfect,  then  why  do we obviously have flaws?  Why
> mosquitoes and pests?  Why man eating lions?"  The  usual  answer
> is that sin caused all these things.

What is sin?  (Scientificly defined, of course.  How about some
first-order principles that make up this entity?)

>      I too agree with the usual answer.  Again, since  the  basis
> of  my  belief  is  the Bible, my reason for this answer is reli-
> gious, and not scientific.

BOOM!  Your words tell it all...  I am going to stop here because
you blatantly admit your error (you may not think it's an error,
but it's inexcusable in science).

> ...
___________________________________________________________________

Live long and prosper.

Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }

keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (04/13/85)

[.............]
> 
> Evolution and Creation cannot even be compared. Creation deals with how
> everything came to be. Evolution concerns an ongoing process. Creation
> should be compared with an origins theory which may or may not use
> evolution as support. 
 
I'll buy that.

> And no origins theory can be proved or falsified, which according to my
> definitions (you're allowed to differ) makes them both non-theories, more
> or less models that evidence can support but never prove or disprove.

However, this has nothing to do with evolution, as per your previous
comment, i.e. evolution is not an origins theory.  If what you say
is true, and both postulated origins theories are religious in nature
and do not belong in the public schools.

> 
> Now the distance to the sun can be proved or disproved since it's there
> now and you won't find many who will cling to a wrong theory about
> something that exists and can be measured.
> 

What is the definition of proof?  Most evolutionary scientists state
that evolution has been proved.

> Normally I would say that any origins 'theory' you wanted to come up with
> is as vaild as creation (or any other origins model) in terms of its
> qualifications as a model. A model can say whatever it wants. The trick is
> to make reasonable enough to be believed.  ...... 

And, as far as I am concerned, creationists have failed.

>                                    ..... I honestly believe, if you have
> another idea on how everything came to be, and if you get a movement
> behind, produce textbooks and teaching aids, you should be able to present
> your views in the school system.

I see.  So school science should be politically dictated by non-scientists?
If I can gain enough political momentum I can cause school teachers to
teach that the earth is flat, or 6000 years old, or was created yesterday
etc.?  Science by propaganda campaign, WONDERFUL.
(what about the separation of laboratory and state? :-)


> Your proposal above deals with an origin theory that differs from the rest
> in that it can be verified, occurring after recorded history.
> 
> 		Mike Johnston

Recorded history can be 'created' too.  (remember, 'fully operational').

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd

ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (04/14/85)

>> 
>> If the bottom line is, you are arguing for 'equal time' then I must propose
>> this:
>> 
>> 1.  The universe was created 5 minutes ago.
>> 
>> 2.  It was created by a panel of 3 gods named Wilbur, Jack and Fred.
>> 
>> 3.  They are all powerful, and created a 'fully operational' universe.
>> 
>> 4.  Since they are all powerful, it only took them 12 seconds. (they only
>>     had to warm up)
>> 
>> Now.  Tell me why this belief is not EVERY BIT as valid as the Creationist
>> account and shouldn't also receive 'equal time' in the schools along with
>> Evolution and Creation.
>> 
>> Keith Doyle
>> #  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
>> "You'll PAY to know what you REALLY think!"
>> 

> Normally I would say that any origins 'theory' you wanted to come up with
> is as vaild as creation (or any other origins model) in terms of its
> qualifications as a model. A model can say whatever it wants. The trick is
> to make reasonable enough to be believed. I honestly believe, if you have
> another idea on how everything came to be, and if you get a movement
> behind, produce textbooks and teaching aids, you should be able to present
> your views in the school system.
> Your proposal above deals with an origin theory that differs from the rest
> in that it can be verified, occurring after recorded history.
> 
> 		Mike Johnston

No it can't.  When Wilbur, Jack, and Fred created the universe,
they made it with all the trappings of a past that never happened,
including fossils, recorded history, and your memories.

js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (04/15/85)

> A model can say whatever it wants. The trick is
> to make reasonable enough to be believed. I honestly believe, if you have
> another idea on how everything came to be, and if you get a movement
> behind, produce textbooks and teaching aids, you should be able to present
> your views in the school system.
> 
> 		Mike Johnston

     I was starting to wonder why I even bothered to argue with people
like Mike when Mike was kind enough to remind me.  Because he thinks that
he has the right to teach *children* this kind of garbage.  In fact,
this one even thinks that anyone should be allowed to teach children 
whatever they want, as long as they can 'get a movement behind' them.
     Maybe Mike thinks we should decide which theory to teach by voting?
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
    "Oh no.  It wasn't the airplanes.  'Twas beauty killed the beast."-King K.

johnston@spp1.UUCP (Micheal L. Johnston) (04/17/85)

>       Another gripe is that you and other creationists dont really
> understand the constraints of science.  One of the major aspects of a
> scientific theory is that it be "falsifiable".  That is, a good theory
> doesn't merely explain everything; it specifically predicts that certain
> observations, if made, would prove the theory wrong.  It is this aspect that
> keeps astrology out of the realm of science.  If a theory or concept cannot
> be disproven (i.e. that evil spirits cause disease and just make it look
> like germs), then it is not science!
> 
> 
>       I hope you see the point Lief.  Evoluton on the otherhand, is
> disprovable (it is just that the evidence to disprove it has not been
> found).  

Maybe you should provide your definition of evolution before you say its
disprovable. In particular, what "observations would prove the theory
wrong"? If my definition agrees with yours that evolution involves a
transition from one species to another, then the only observation that
would disprove the theory would be to watch all species for infinity for
an ocurrence of that transition. Since there can't be a time constraint
since a transition could occur after any arbitrary end, the theory can
never be disproved. Now don't get sidetracked on whether my definition of
evolution matches yours. The point is that only theories with a set of
discrete observations for falsifiability can be disproven.

Now ask yourself how many accepted scientific theories are really
falsifiable according to your criteria. Can you disprove gravity?
What observation would do so?

Couldn't I then say that creation is falsifiable by the observation that
it occurred a different way. Which observation is easier to observe. Both
are rather difficult.

So you see that creation can be disproved. It has one discrete observation
that will falsify it, but no one is old enough to remember.

Which brings me to a more salient point. Creation concerns itself with an
event that took place once and only once by definition. There can never be
an observation proving or disproving it. Evolution is a process. The two
can't really be compared as to observations. Any origins theory, which is
the only thing creation can be compared with, also is neither provable or
disprovable.

	Mike Johnston

johnston@spp1.UUCP (Micheal L. Johnston) (04/17/85)

> If what you say
> is true, and both postulated origins theories are religious in nature
> and do not belong in the public schools.

I didn't say that. Conclude what you will. Whether Evolution and
Creationism or both taught or both excluded is another matter. I don't
like the fact that there is a bias.

> What is the definition of proof?  Most evolutionary scientists state
> that evolution has been proved.

Why have you been keeping this from? Are you a suspense novelist on the
side? Please produce the proof and of course the definition of evolution
it proves.

> >                                    ..... I honestly believe, if you have
> > another idea on how everything came to be, and if you get a movement
> > behind, produce textbooks and teaching aids, you should be able to present
> > your views in the school system.
> 
> I see.  So school science should be politically dictated by non-scientists?
> If I can gain enough political momentum I can cause school teachers to
> teach that the earth is flat, or 6000 years old, or was created yesterday
> etc.?  Science by propaganda campaign, WONDERFUL.
> (what about the separation of laboratory and state? :-)
> 
> 
> Keith Doyle
> #  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd

Why would you define someone who comes up with another origins theory a
non-scientist. If science decides to base line everything it currently
accepts and define anything new as non-science then I think we've just
heard the death knell for true science.


		MIke Johnston

keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (04/18/85)

[.............]
> Maybe you should provide your definition of evolution before you say its
> disprovable. In particular, what "observations would prove the theory
> wrong"? If my definition agrees with yours that evolution involves a
> transition from one species to another, then the only observation that
> would disprove the theory would be to watch all species for infinity for
> an ocurrence of that transition. Since there can't be a time constraint
> since a transition could occur after any arbitrary end, the theory can
> never be disproved. Now don't get sidetracked on whether my definition of
> evolution matches yours. The point is that only theories with a set of
> discrete observations for falsifiability can be disproven.
> 
> Now ask yourself how many accepted scientific theories are really
> falsifiable according to your criteria. Can you disprove gravity?
> What observation would do so?
> 
> Couldn't I then say that creation is falsifiable by the observation that
> it occurred a different way. Which observation is easier to observe. Both
> are rather difficult.
> 
> So you see that creation can be disproved. It has one discrete observation
> that will falsify it, but no one is old enough to remember.
> 
> Which brings me to a more salient point. Creation concerns itself with an
> event that took place once and only once by definition. There can never be
> an observation proving or disproving it. Evolution is a process. The two
> can't really be compared as to observations. Any origins theory, which is
> the only thing creation can be compared with, also is neither provable or
> disprovable.
> 
> 	Mike Johnston

It appears that what we have here is some confusion as to the aspects of
evolution and creation.  As you said, evolution is a process.  Evolution
is not per-se an origins theory.  Evolution has little to do with how
it all got here, but what it has done since it has been here.  This may
include origin of species, but not necessarily origin of the universe.

From Stephen Jay Gould, 'Hens Teeth and Horses Toes'  pp.256:

"Philosopher Karl Popper has argued for decades that the primary criterion
of science is the falsifiability of its theories.  We can never prove
absolutely, but we can falsify.  A set of ideas that cannot, in principle,
be falsified is not science.
   The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical
attempt to falsify evolution by presenting supposed contradictions among
its supporters.  Their brand of creationism, they claim, is "scientific"
because it follows the Popperian model in trying to demolish evolution.
Yet Popper's argument must apply in both directions.  One does not
become a scientist by simple act of trying to falsify a rival and
truly scientific system; one has to present an alternative system that
also meets Popper's criterion--it too must be falsifiable in principle.
   "Scientific creationism" is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase
precisely because it cannot be falsified.  I can envision observations
and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but
I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon
their beliefs.  Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science. " 

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd

keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (04/18/85)

[.................]
> What is the definition of proof?  Most evolutionary scientists state
> that evolution has been proved.

Why have you been keeping this from? Are you a suspense novelist on the
side? Please produce the proof and of course the definition of evolution
it proves.

Ok, ok, I should say that most evolutionary scientists state that evolution
is a fact.  For example:

Stephen Jay Gould, 'Hens Teeth and Horses Toes'  pp. 254 - 259, excerpts.

Well, evolution is a theory.  It is also a fact.  And facts and theories
are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty.
Facts are the world's data.  Theories are structures of ideas that explain
and interpret facts.  Facts do not go away while scientists debate rival
theories for explaining them.  Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced
Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the
outcome.  And human beings evolved from apelike ancestors whether they
did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be 
discovered.
   Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certaity".  The final proofs
of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve
certainty only because they are *not* about the empirical world.  Evolutionists
make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then
attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor).  In science,
"fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse
to withold provisional assent."  I suppose that apples might start to rise
tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
   Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and
theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowleged
how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by
which evolution (fact) occurred.  Darwin continually emphasized the
difference between his two great and seperate accomplishments: establishing
the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain
the mechanism of evolution.   .....

   Our confidence that evolution occured centers upon three general arguments.
First we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action,
from both field and laboratory.  This evidence ranges from countless
experiments on change in nearly everything about fruit flies subjected to
artificial selection in the laboratory to the famous population of British
moths that became black when industrial soot darkened the trees upon which
the moths rest. (Moths gain protection from sharp-sighted bird predators by
blending into the background.)  Creationists do not deny these observations;
how could they?  Creationists have tightened their act.  They now argue that
God only created "basic kinds," and allowed for limited evolutionary
meandering within them.  Thus toy poodles and Great Danes come from the dog
kind and moths can change color, but nature cannot convert from the dog to
a cat or a monkey to a man.
   The second and third arguments for evolution--the case for major changes-
do not involve direct observation of evolution in action.  They rest upon
inference, but are no less secure for that reason.  Major evolutionary
change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of
recorded human history.  All historical sciences rest upon inference,
and evolution is no different from geology, cosmology, or human history
in this respect.  In principle, we cannot observe processes that operated
in the past.  We must infer them from results that still surround us: living
and fossil organisms for evolution, documents and artifacts for human history,
strata and topography for geology.
   The second argument--that the imperfection of nature reveals evolution--
strikes many people as ironic, for they feel that evolution should be most
elegantly displayed in the nearly perfect adaptation expressed by some 
organisms--the camber of a gull's wing, or butterflies that cannot be
seen in ground litter because they mimic leaves so precisely.  But 
perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection.
Perfection covers the tracks of past history.  And past history--the evidence
of descent--is the mark of evolution.
  Evolution lies exposed in the *imperfections* that record a history of
descent.  Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this
essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them
from a common ancestor?  An engineer, starting from scratch, could design
better limbs in each case.  Why should all the large native mammals of 
Austrailia be marsupials, unless they descended from a common ancestor
isolated on this island continent?  Marsupials are not "better," or ideally
suited for Austrailia; many have been wiped out by placental mammals
imported by man from other continents.  This principle of imperfection
extends to all historical sciences.   When we recognize the etymology
of September, October, November, and December (seventh, eighth, ninth,
and tenth), we know that the year once started in March, or that two
additional months must have been added to an original calendar of ten
months.
  The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the
fossil record.  Preserved transitions are not common--and should not be,
according to our understanding of evolution [reference to later section
on punctuated equilibrium] but they are not entirely wanting, as 
creationists often claim.  The lower jaw of reptiles contains several
bones, that of mammals only one.  The non-mammilian jawbones are reduced,
step by step, in mammilian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins
located at the back of the jaw.  The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the
mammilian ear are descendents of these nubbins.  How could such a transition
be accomplished?  the creationists ask.  Surely a bone is either entirely
in the jaw or in the ear.  Yet palentologists have discovered two 
transitional lineages of theraspids(the so-called mammal-like reptiles)
with a double jaw joint--one composed of the old quadrate and articular
bones(soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal
and dentary bones(as in modern mammals).  For that matter, what better
transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human,
Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright
stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape's of the same body
size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours?  If God made each
of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did
he create an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern
features--increasing crainial capacity, reduced face and teeth,
larger body size?  Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith
thereby?

> >                                    ..... I honestly believe, if you have
> > another idea on how everything came to be, and if you get a movement
> > behind, produce textbooks and teaching aids, you should be able to present
> > your views in the school system.
> 
> I see.  So school science should be politically dictated by non-scientists?
> If I can gain enough political momentum I can cause school teachers to
> teach that the earth is flat, or 6000 years old, or was created yesterday
> etc.?  Science by propaganda campaign, WONDERFUL.
> (what about the separation of laboratory and state? :-)
> 
> 
> Keith Doyle
> #  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd

Why would you define someone who comes up with another origins theory a
non-scientist. If science decides to base line everything it currently
accepts and define anything new as non-science then I think we've just
heard the death knell for true science.


		MIke Johnston

I would agree on your last sentence.  However, science does not reject
new ideas and theories.  However, scientists expect new ideas to have
certain characteristics that make them worthy of adoption.  Science generally
does not support several conflicting theories at the same time.  The theory
that best fits the facts, makes predictions, is falsifiable, etc. is 
utilized until something better comes along.  Science certainly has
been guilty at times of ignoring theories that later prove to be the
better ones.  But evolution is the better theory that *replaced* creation
as it is much more useful to scientists exploring in areas related to
biology etc.  Evolution can suggest new experiments that can further refine
theories of how evolution might have occured, real experiments that
can expand our sphere of knowledge.  Creation however, suggests little,
if anything that helps us move forward.  Creation for example, would
indicate that it is impossible to generate new forms of life via
experimenting with DNA.  Evolution makes no such claim, and may actually
be of service in decomposing more exactly what effects the DNA protiens
have on species etc.  

                   .... One witness pointed to a passage in his
chemistry text that attributed great age to fossil fuels.  Since the
Arkansas act specifically includes "a relatively recent age of the earth"
among the definitions of creation science requireing "balanced treatment"
this passage would have to be changed.  The witness claimed he did not
know how to make such an alteration.  Why not? retorted the assistant
attorney general in his cross-examination. You only need to insert a
simple sentence: "Some scientists, however, believe that fossil fuels
are relatively young."  Then, in the most impressive statement of the
entire trial, the teacher responded.  I could, he argued, insert such
a sentence in mechanical compliance with the act.  But I cannot, as a
conscientious teacher, do so.  For "balanced treatment" must mean
"equal dignity" and I would therefore have to justify the insertion.
And this I cannot do, for I have heard no valid arguments that would
support such a position

            - Stephen Jay Gould, 'Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes' pp. 288-289

I'd like to take an example issue with the creationist 'special processes
which are not now operating in the natural universe'.  This is how the
creationists purport to explain the creation of the universe, and of all
the animal and human 'kinds'.

In other words, 'magic'.  You don't need 'magic' to explain how the Grand
Canyon was formed, we have natural processes that explain such quite well.
And you don't need 'magic' to make light beams from distant stars reach
the earth, there are natural processes that, given enough time, can do it
on their own.  Within science, natural processes are preferred to 'magic',
as the understanding of these natural processes is what science is about.
Science cannot understand 'magic'.  'Magic' is outside the realm of science.
You can't propose 'magic' as an alternative to science and expect everyone
to throw Einstein and Darwin and all the rest out the window to bow down
in awe of the great nonunderstandable 'magic'.

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
"You'll THINK to know what you REALLY pay!"

friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (04/18/85)

In article <189@spp1.UUCP> johnston@spp1.UUCP (Micheal L. Johnston) writes:
>
>Maybe you should provide your definition of evolution before you say its
>disprovable. In particular, what "observations would prove the theory
>wrong"? If my definition agrees with yours that evolution involves a
>transition from one species to another, then the only observation that
>would disprove the theory would be to watch all species for infinity for
>an ocurrence of that transition. Since there can't be a time constraint
>since a transition could occur after any arbitrary end, the theory can
>never be disproved. Now don't get sidetracked on whether my definition of
>evolution matches yours. The point is that only theories with a set of
>discrete observations for falsifiability can be disproven.

	But this is *not* what a scientist means by falsifiability,
he means that the predictions of a theory are such that obsertvations
which would tend to show it invalid are at least *concievable*.
Remember, absolute proof is impossible in science. Ther are many
observations that would tend to disprove evolutionary theory,
but, as the preceding article mentioned, they have not been seen.
One major sort of evidence would be clear, unambigous fossils of
a specilized form many millions of years earlier than the fossils
of the most similar less specialized forms(I mean like *skeletons*
of Homo sapiens in Jurassic sediments). Or, alternatively, a well
demonstrated, non-evolutionary explanation for the species that have
appeared in recent times, and there *are* such in the literature,
they are just all *local* species, and therefor not well-known.
>
>Now ask yourself how many accepted scientific theories are really
>falsifiable according to your criteria. Can you disprove gravity?
>What observation would do so?
>
	Gravity is *easily* falsifiable, if the Earth proceded to
move off in a straight line instead of continuing to orbit the Sun,
or if an object released from someones hand *didn't* fall, this
would clearly falsify gravity theory. Scientists would then have to
come up with some other explanation of why things tend to move towards
one-another.

>Couldn't I then say that creation is falsifiable by the observation that
>it occurred a different way. Which observation is easier to observe. Both
>are rather difficult.
>
	But creationism is *not* falsifiable in the scientific sense,
since for any concievable observation I might make, you can say,
"But God *made* it that way", He could even have created the Universe
complete with a past(see other postings). Evolutionary theory, as a
theory of a process, at least predicts that a certain *class* of
observations will occur as a result of the process, all of which are
in fact observed.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen

dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (04/19/85)

In article <541@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes:
>   "Scientific creationism" is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase
>precisely because it cannot be falsified.  I can envision observations
>and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but
>I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon
>their beliefs.  Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science. " 
>
>Keith Doyle
>#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd

   This is not true. If science could observe a transmutation, this would
   disprove creation. Since many evolutionists have abandoned gradualism,
   this may not be unreasonable! Also, if scientists could produce life
   in a laboratory (not just the building blocks of life, but LIFE),
   this would also disprove creation. As creation holds that only the
   creator can create.
   If the fossils can produce a clear cut transitional species, this
   may also do the job.

   Though creation as a religious belief is not falsifiable,
   creation SCIENCE is falsifiable.

   I would be interested in hearing some examples of how Evolution
   could be falsified?

				      Dan

keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (04/19/85)

[.............]
> In article <541@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes:
> >   "Scientific creationism" is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase
> >precisely because it cannot be falsified.  I can envision observations
> >and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but
> >I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon
> >their beliefs.  Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science. " 
> >
>    This is not true. If science could observe a transmutation, this would
>    disprove creation. Since many evolutionists have abandoned gradualism,
>    this may not be unreasonable! Also, if scientists could produce life
>    in a laboratory (not just the building blocks of life, but LIFE),
>    this would also disprove creation. As creation holds that only the
>    creator can create.

Being aware of the fact that creationists at the ICR must sign an affidavit
attesting that they believe that the Bible is to be taken literally etc.
it would appear that such an observed transmutation could then be explained
as an 'act of God' or a 'miracle' or who knows what, but dosen't necessarily
disprove creation. (as one would expect from current creationist tactics).

>    If the fossils can produce a clear cut transitional species, this
>    may also do the job.
> 
>    Though creation as a religious belief is not falsifiable,
>    creation SCIENCE is falsifiable.
> 
>    I would be interested in hearing some examples of how Evolution
>    could be falsified?
> 
> 				      Dan
> 
One basic prediction of evolution is, that life, *all* life, as diverse as
it is linked up in a hierarchical arrangement of similarities.  We might
postulate then, that all life is constructed using the basic building
block DNA.  If however we discovered one or more life forms that didn't
use DNA as a building block, we may have falsified at least one aspect
of evolutionary theory.

Various sub-theories of evolution have been tested again and again over the
past 200 years, effectively causing great refinement of evolutionary
theory as a whole.  If a new theory surfaces that purports to explain 
the facts that evolution is now based on, it should be possible to construct
an experiment that would show that one or the other theory is false.  In
particular, some aspect of the new theory that conflicts with evolution
would be singled out, and some experiment designed to test whether
evolution or the new theory was correct based on this conflicting aspect.

A possible example:  If, we discovered a new aspect of some living creature,
say at a cellular or molecular level... lets say we found that a particular
type of monkey, had a peculiar mechanism for accomplishing some biological
phenomena.  Lets say it had a chemical system based on 'xylophene' (remember
this is supposed to be an example) and this new chemical system allowed
the monkey to read minds.  In addition, lets say we have a new theory
that postulates that because of some new reasons for origins that conflict
with evolution, that no other species would have this 'xylophene' system.
And, being an extremely sophisticated system, you might expect there to
be some evidence of such a systems evolution otherwise.  We could then
go out and look for another species with the 'xylophene' system.  If none
were found, then we have failed to falsify the new theory, and have
falsified at least one prediction of evolution.  Looking further, and
developing more tests, we could then begin to determine which theory
fits the facts better.

Niles Eldrige on evolution:

"...On the other hand, the basic prediction of evolution, as we have
just seen, is abundantly confirmed.  Does this mean that we have proven
evolution to be "true"?  It is more accurate to say that, thus far,
we have failed to *falsify* the notion of evolution, but it is always
possible that new observations will show that the apparent pattern
of progressive similarity that seems to link up all life is, in some
sense, false.  Also, it is possible that someone in the future will
come up with an idea other than evolution that will also predict the
patterns of similarity we see in the organic realm.
   As of this writing, no one has come up with an alternative, *testable*
idea (one that yields predictions) to explain the patterns we all see.
Creationists of course, agree that there is a pattern of similarity
conecting all forms of life.  They merely claim that it pleased the
Creator to fashion life in this way.  But the Creator obviously could
have fashioned each species in any way imagineable.  There is no basis
for us to make predictions about what we should find when we study
animals and plants if we accept the basic creationist position. ....
...This simple prediction--that there is one grand pattern of similarity
linking up all life--dosen't *prove* evolution.  But the failure of 
scientists to *disprove* evolution over the past two hundred years
of comparative biological research means that evolution really is
one of the few grand ideas of biology that has stood the test of time.
The basic notion of evolution is thoroughly scientific in the strictest
sense of the word, and as such is highly corroborated and at least as
powerful as the notion of gravity or the idea that the earth is round,
spins on it's axis, and revolves around the sun."

                            -Niles Eldredge, 'The Monkey Business' pp.38-40

When a theory simply postulates 'magic' as an answer to any
conflicts that occur, you don't really have any basis for testing one
theory against another.  Again, science always prefers natural processes
to 'magic'.

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
"Science Marches On"

dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/20/85)

> [Mike Johnston]
> Which brings me to a more salient point. Creation concerns itself with an
> event that took place once and only once by definition. There can never be
> an observation proving or disproving it. Evolution is a process. The two
> can't really be compared as to observations. Any origins theory, which is
> the only thing creation can be compared with, also is neither provable or
> disprovable.

The once and only once is not *necessarily* a part of all possible creation
theories.  However, if the creation of any *particular* group occurs
discretely, then it is certainly true that no group could witness its
own creation.
-- 
                                                                    |
Paul DuBois	{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
                                                                    |
"Danger signs, a creeping independence"                             |

dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/20/85)

> [Mike Johnston]
> Why would you define someone who comes up with another origins theory a
> non-scientist. If science decides to base line everything it currently
> accepts and define anything new as non-science then I think we've just
> heard the death knell for true science.

I guess I changed my .signature line too quickly.

Way to go, Mike!
-- 
                                                                    |
Paul DuBois	{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
                                                                    |
"Danger signs, a creeping independence"                             |

ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (04/20/85)

> Why would you define someone who comes up with another origins theory a
> non-scientist. If science decides to base line everything it currently
> accepts and define anything new as non-science then I think we've just
> heard the death knell for true science.

The acceptance of Punctuated Equilibrium and Plate Tectonics
are indications that science does not define anything new as
non-science.  You seem to think that science should accept everything
new, no matter how outlandish or lacking in evidence.

bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (04/21/85)

> In article <541@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes:
> >   "Scientific creationism" is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase
> >precisely because it cannot be falsified.  I can envision observations
> >and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but
> >I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon
> >their beliefs.  Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science. " 
> >
> >Keith Doyle
> >#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
> 
>    This is not true. If science could observe a transmutation, this would
>    disprove creation. Since many evolutionists have abandoned gradualism,
>    this may not be unreasonable! Also, if scientists could produce life
>    in a laboratory (not just the building blocks of life, but LIFE),
>    this would also disprove creation. As creation holds that only the
>    creator can create.
>    If the fossils can produce a clear cut transitional species, this
>    may also do the job.
> 
>    Though creation as a religious belief is not falsifiable,
>    creation SCIENCE is falsifiable.
> 
Sorry, but no.  Putting on my Creationist hat :-) I could respond that
"God made it *appear* that a transmutation had occurred, but in fact
it was just a miracle He performed".  You see, you can't get out of
miracles when you explain everything by an almightly deity.

-- 
"Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from
	religious conviction."  -- Blaise Pascal

	Bill Jefferys  8-%
	Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (USnail)
	{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill	(uucp)
	bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA		(ARPANET)

ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (04/24/85)

> > In article <541@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes:
> Sorry, but no.  Putting on my Creationist hat :-) I could respond that
> "God made it *appear* that a transmutation had occurred, but in fact
> it was just a miracle He performed".  You see, you can't get out of
> miracles when you explain everything by an almightly deity.

More to the point, God could have created the universe as it
exists, evolution included, and expects us all to figure it out.
Look, Ma...Im a creationist!!

cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (04/26/85)

Evolution and creationism... ok, let's not be so polar in our views.  
A third, and personally held view is that of theistic evolution.  I am not a 
scientist, but the evidence for changes in a gene frequency in the gene
pool (the scientific definition of evolution) is overwhelming... that
species are not static, and that organisms have adapted to adverse 
environments with physical changes.  Whew.  Now, the point:  the overall
effect of this are creatures that are wonderful in their design, and
the planet has an intricate ecosystem that no amount of time could just
happen to produce.  Thus, evolution could be viewed as a natural law, 
set into motion by a higher Intelligence (Whom I prefer to call God
as revealed in the Bible).

Now, I do not believe that every time a volcano goes, "Boom" that God was
behind that.  Nor do I believe that every disease, falling tree, or
puppy getting run over by a car is an "Act of God."  No.  Any logical
engineer sets into motion certain causes and effects that he will not
constantly oversee.  That frees up his time and mental energy to worry
and work with the important matters.. Example: the brain stem has cer-
tain functions that are not consciously controlled, like breathing, or typing 
(after you've been typing for awhile). That neocortex is "free" from 
dealing with these fuctions, and worry about the important input, like
philosophical debates about God!!  Now:  God set up natural law to run
the universe like a watch... with consistency of effect (or we'd
have no laws), esthetic beauty and form (like any good design)--He is free
if you will, to deal with the most important matter:  His created beings-
us- who constantly debate His reality.  He is aware that the sparrow
fell, but He is concerned with the fall of His children.

Evolution, gravity, the speed of light, etc.:  all good engineering
designs that allow us to live in a world that works, and can
be very pleasing, if we celebrate our place as created beings.
End of sermon.... I'm kidding.  I am just so upset by seeing E's and
C's in such opposite corners.  Science (the knowledge of the design
and how it works) and creationism (the belief in a a loving Creator) 
are not incompatible.  Thanks for reading this...

By the way, the header may say "Clayton Cramer", but his wife
is responsible for this statement.

long@oliveb.UUCP (A Panther Modern) (04/28/85)

cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer's wife) writes:
| happen to produce.  Thus, evolution could be viewed as a natural law, 

    I wasn't aware that evolution is a natural law, I thought it is a symptom
    of natural processes.

| C's in such opposite corners.  Science (the knowledge of the design
| and how it works) and creationism (the belief in a a loving Creator) 

    Your belief in a loving creator is fine with me, but it seems that most of
the C's in the far corner over there are more interested in revealing to us
heathen how Genesis is the literal (or not *so* literal) truth of how this
universe came to be than in showing to us E's why the belief in their creator
and his method of creating works as a better model of the surface characteris-
tics of natural processes than the theories on which the concept of evolution
is based.
						Dave Long
-- 
	gnoL evaD						Beware of
{msoft,allegra,gsgvax,fortune,hplabs,idi,ios,			Black ICE
 nwuxd,ihnp4,tolrnt,tty3b,vlsvax1,zehntel}!oliveb!long

padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (04/28/85)

> ....   I am just so upset by seeing E's and
> C's in such opposite corners.  Science (the knowledge of the design
> and how it works) and creationism (the belief in a a loving Creator) 
> are not incompatible.  Thanks for reading this...

They are not incompatible perhaps in a religious sense. They are
incompatible in a scientific sense i.e. a "loving Creator" is not
within the domain of science. Science and anti-science
will always be in opposite corners.

Padraig Houlahan.