[net.origins] COMMENTS FROM THE FRONTLINE

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