paul@phs.UUCP (Paul C. Dolber) (04/26/85)
Keith Doyle (...!trwrb!cadovax!keithd) writes in 555@cadovax.UUCP:
"...if the creationist wishes to attack evolution, he must educate
the scientific community as to his 'better' alternative theory."
(1) For the moment, let us say "if someone wishes to attack some
aspect of evolutionary theory..." Then, is it necessary to provide
an alternative theory, better or otherwise? I think not. Should you
come and tell me that a diet of M&M's and carrot juice will cure
colorectal carcinoma, I needn't prove what the cure is to reject
yours.
(2) For the moment, let us assume that someone has successfully
attacked (i.e., falsified) some aspect of evolutionary theory. Has
he/she then disproved evolution? Of course not. But even if evolution
never took place, falsifying the entire theory is a rather tall
order and a stepwise approach seems appropriate. Some have argued
in this group that it may be impossible to falsify evolution even
if it did not occur; while I believe in evolution -- my faith is
strong -- I know just what they mean. Meanwhile, I see no reason
why one shouldn't feel free to attempt to falsify any aspect of
evolutionary theory one thinks is false.
Which sort of leads us to (3). Namely, what is the purpose of this
newsgroup? If memory serves, Paul Dubuc was the originator of the
suggestion that net.origins be created, with that name, to discuss
the origins of absolutely anything. While this suggestion was
welcomed by many netters as a way to get the creation-evolution
debate out of net.misc, it is not clear to me that there is any
reason to limit the scope of this newsgroup to that debate. Indeed,
I'd much prefer it were not so limited. Evolution is most emphatically
not of interest solely as an alternative to creation -- or would
you lose all interest in evolution tomorrow if a news bulletin
came in this afternoon proving beyond all doubt that there was
no God? Some have argued in this group that this is the case, that
evolution was hailed not for unraveling a mystery of nature,
but (roughly) for "freeing us from God." Are they right in your
case?
Regards, Paul Dolber (...duke!phs!paul).
PS: In the last paragraph, "you" and "your" are used in the indefinte
sense, and do not refer specifically to Keith Doyle.