hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (02/18/85)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Duncan A. Buell" <buell%lsu.csnet>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Ray Miller, University of Illinois, writes:
"As I have often stated, the premise is that all organisms were
created in perfect organization & were functionally complete.
...
This [disease?] is one of the consequences of deviating from the
initial condition in which we were created.
...
This is a theological question. Evil implies morality.
...
The ultimate root cause is that it is a direct consequence of
our fall from our initial condition in which we were created.
...
Here, however, I must cry foul. You ask a theological question
(what is the purpose behind evil & diseases) & then restrict
answers to nontheological territory."
(I have excerpted, but I don't think I have taken anything out of context
given what I am now about to say.)
QUESTION 1: What do you mean by "perfect" and is that not some sort of
value judgement which is itself theological? Who indeed should call foul?
IF the purpose of creation is continuance of the creation (which sounds
suspiciously like "nature red in tooth and claw") then one sort of
"perfection" might be implied. IF, on the other hand, the purpose of
creation was the extinction of the creation, then total sexual sterility
of the created organisms would be an attribute necessary in order to be
called "perfect". Indeed, can we separate a concept of "perfect" from
the functional concept "perfect for the intended purpose?" A third sort
of perfect organism would be one that unquestioningly worshipped its
creator, if "perfection" were to imply that sort of worship.
QUESTION 2: How does a perfect organism deviate? If it possesses the
ability to deviate, isn't it imperfect? If it possesses the ability to
"fall," isn't it imperfect? I am talking here about chemistry, biology,
and physics, and not about morality or "free will." To be scientific,
don't you have to assume that these "deviations" have some natural cause
rather than vengeful, malicious, or perhaps simply idle random genetic
bit twiddling on the part of the creator?
QUESTION 3: Aren't all of Miller's statements and both of my questions
theological and not scientific? None of this, either his or mine, sounds
new to me. The best philosophers and theologians of the last several
thousand years have discussed and debated (and occasionally been arrested,
burned, excommunicated, or exiled) such things as free will, original sin,
the nature of disease, the question of how Satan can exist and continue
to work in the universe if God were actually omnipotent. Is any of this
something that can be examined on a scientific basis without recourse to
speculation about the nature of a supernatural being?
free will, original sin, and the like.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
END OF COMMENT
hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (03/25/85)
____________________________________________________________ { From: Duncan Buell buell@lsu.csnet } There is an old comment about discussions that suggests that there must be some sort of agreement on basic princi- ples before a meaningful discussion can take place on details. Let me suggest that we have some total disagree- ment on basic principles, or else this discussion is about something different from what I think it is. An issue or two back the request was made that the creationists should make some statement about what it was they *did* believe, since it appeared it was hard to pin down *creationism* as some topic which could be discussed. The result was the posting of the CRS statement which must (apparently) be signed before membership in CRS is approved. Now, if anything would be a "litmus test" as to the objec- tivity of a scientist, it would seem to me that that state- ment is the test. That is, signing a statement which asserts that any document, however long or venerable its history, constitutes ultimate scientific truth would, I claim, demolish any semblance of professional credibility. (I, for example, don't believe that pi has the value 3, but I don't consider the value of pi to be a religious issue. I would ask the CRS people to explain how the value of pi has changed since Kings and Chronicles.) One of the characteristics of an inquiring mind is a healthy skepticism, which the scientific discoveries of the last several decades should have caused to be nurtured. I remember a conversation with the man who taught me nuclear physics, a man of some distinction in his field, when I sug- gested that the whole discipline reminded me of Ptolemy's model of the universe. His answer to me seemed to be at the heart of modern science. What we have now as science is not the final answer, but rather the closest we have to a description of matter that fits what we observe and which, if extrapolated to new situations, continues to fit. I continue to a comment on the quotation of the ICR articles. ICR maintains that "the evolution model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggest- ing that" among other things "The Universe and the solar system emerged by naturalistic processes," that "Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes," and some other things. I find it hard to accept as a scientist any- one who didn't start with those as basic premises. Don't we assume that *everything* is driven by natural forces, and attempt to provide a description of the universe based on that assumption? Isn't that what Descartes was talking about? Isn't that what Galileo got in trouble for? We make the basic premise that everything works according to natural processes. We observe, and we investigate, and we attempt to put together a description of the way the universe works based on the premise and the observations. With this we build a framework called "science." An alternative is a basic premise that a creator exists, who created everything. This is an acceptable premise, from which we obtain a description of the way the universe works, which description goes by the name of "religion." (Curiously enough, a local high school teacher, against whom certain individuals and organizations are planning to file suit on first amendment grounds, accepted the above two deductions while still maintaining that he did not teach "religion" in his class when he taught that creationism was possibly valid science.) The religious view may be true. I will certainly not maintain that "scientific facts" are necessarily "true." They are "scientific facts" within the framework of the rules of science and its basic premise that everything takes place naturally, that the rules don't change. But "truth" is not at issue--that is reserved for a discussion in meta- physics. However, we have at least three people on the net who are willing to sign a statement that automatically puts them out in left field, when what they say they want to do is play basketball. I don't think we have enough of a con- sensus as to the basic premises to be able to carry on a discussion about "science." Religion, yes; philosophy, yes; but science, no. DISCLAIMER: The following signature line will appear just this once, unless a clamour arises calling for its continuance. In response to what I consider to be some truly offensive crea- tionist signature lines, I tried to come up with one of my own that was equally offensive to good taste. I don't know whether I have succeeded. |----------------------------------------------------------------| | ......... | | "The only good Christian . X . | | . | X . | | is a lapsed Christian." . ---+-X- . | | . |X . | | . X . | | Duncan A. Buell . X| . | | csnet: buell.lsu@csnet-relay ..X...... | | | |----------------------------------------------------------------| ____________________________________________________________ END-OF-COMMENTS