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 COMMENThua@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