hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (03/07/85)
Larry Brickford quoting ICR's May and June 1981 Impact Articles:
_____________________________________________________________________________
The creation model includes the The evolution model includes the
scientific evidence and the related scientific evidence and the related
inferences suggesting that: inferences suggesting that:
.............................................................................
1) The universe and the solar system 1) The Universe and the solar system
were suddenly created. emerged by naturalistic processes.
2) Life was suddenly created. 2) Life emerged from nonlife by
naturalistic processes.
3) All present living kinds of 3) All present kinds emerged from
animals and plants have remained simpler earlier kinds, so that
fixed since creation, other than single-celled organisms evolved
extinctions, and genetic variation into invertebrates, then verte-
in originally created kinds has brates, then amphibians, then
only occurred within narrow limits. reptiles, then mammals, then
primates, including man.
4) Mutation and natural selection 4) Mutation and natural selection
are insufficient to have brought have brought about the emergence
about any emergence of present kinds of present complex kinds from a
from a simple primordial organism. simple primordial organism.
5) Man and apes have a separate 5) Man and apes emerged from a
ancestry. common ancestor.
6) The earth's geologic features 6) The earth's geologic features
appear to have been fashioned by were fashioned largely by slow,
rapid, catastrophic processes that gradual processes, with infrequent
affected the earth on a global and catastrophic events restricted to
regional scale (catastrophism). a local scale (uniformitarianism).
7) The inception of the earth and 7) The inception of the earth and
of living kinds may have been then of life must have occurred
relatively recent. several billion years ago.
_____________________________________________________________________________
My comments later ...
Keeblerhua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (03/13/85)
______________________________________________________________________ A while ago, Larry Bickford sent me the "official" set of assertions that constitute the creation model of origins. It was posted in its original form. Here, it appears in a reformatted version to allow for comments to be inserted conveniently. > CREATION MODEL AND EVOLUTION MODEL > > (According to the May and June 1983 issues of ICR's > Impact Articles as quoted by Larry Bickford.) > _________________________________________________________________ > > The creation model includes the scientific evidence and the re- > lated inferences suggesting that: > > 1) The universe and the solar system were suddenly created. This statement is far too vague. It could be considered valid because it, in a sense, agrees with the Big Bang theory. It has some implica- tions, including the existence of some creation mechanism, which may take the form of a single intelligent being, which is what the crea- tionists are really after. Note that "universe" and "solar system" are the key words here, though "universe" is not defined. If one con- siders the universe to be all of space/matter, then the implication is that there was nothing (as in Genesis) or something else before. In any case, this statement does not violate the age of Big Bang or heavenly bodies. However, the creationists seem to disagree sharply on the age of the universe. (Scientists don't seem to worry too much over this fact.) > 2) Life was suddenly created. Interesting assertion. The previous one is much harder to attack. This one quickly limits the creation model, as it requires the model to pro- duce a creation date/time/place/mechanism (and a creator, in the case of creationists). > 3) All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained > fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic varia- > tion in originally created kinds has only occurred within narrow > limits. This is not supported by scientific evidence. This statement implies that there is some magical limit to keep variations from getting out of hand. (I say magical because there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of such limits.) > 4) Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have > brought about any emergence of present kinds from a simple pri- > mordial organism. This is a blatant reversal of an over-generalized evolution concept. (ie. You say "it can"? Well, I say "it can't!") Once again, there is no scientific evidence to support this statement. The word "kind" here is used; it has absolutely no scientific meaning. The statement also accuses evolution of assuming that all organisms can be traced back to one single living organism. I find this hard to believe; if one organism emerged, what could have prevented more from emerging independent of the first? > 5) Man and apes have a separate ancestry. Once again, there is no scientific evidence to support this state- ment, and it is another blatant reversal of an evolutionary implica- tion. > 6) The earth's geologic features appear to have been fashioned by > rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global > and regional scale (catastrophism). Must I repeat my self? There is no scientific evidence ... > 7) The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been > relatively recent. Compare this statement to #7 of the evolution model. It seems that creationists are trying to say that scientists are forced to come to the conclusion that the universe is extremely old, but creationists are not. This is a lie, if not worse. Scientists have independently concluded that the universe is old; thus evolution could have taken place. > _________________________________________________________________ > > The evolution model includes the scientific evidence and the re- > lated inferences suggesting that: > > 1) The Universe and the solar system emerged by naturalistic > processes. What else would you expect? All of science must assume that natural laws will always hold. If something goes haywire, then the law that is applicable must have been misunderstood. There might very well be a god screwing around with the natural laws to totally confuse us scientists. However, that is not within our realm of study. This, and the next statement, suggests that the creation model expects that non-naturalistic process(es) had occured to replace the natural- istic processes that are refered to in these two statements. One usually refers to those things as "supernatural". Supernatural pro- cesses are automatically disqualified from attaining scientific status because they are beyond the realm of study of scientists. Another name for the sciences is "the natural sciences", isn't it?! > 2) Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes. Ditto. Afterall, the basic building blocks of life have already been proven to be able to form in one primitive environment. The right one may not have been tested yet, but at least one possibility does exist. > 3) All present kinds emerged from simpler earlier kinds, so that > single-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then verte- > brates, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then pri- > mates, including man. I will not sign the part with the list giving the order of evolution, as it could be different. In fact, I will not sign any part of this statement since it uses a creationist term "kind", which has absolutely no scientific meaning. This is a distorted translation of evolutionary sequencing into creationist terms. > 4) Mutation and natural selection have brought about the emer- > gence of present complex kinds from a simple primordial organism. This is okay, sort of. It does not say that mutation and natural selection are sufficient for the emergence of present species. Oh, that silly word "kind" is stuck in there again! And, of course, the accusation that everything came from a single organism ... > 5) Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor. This is likely, according to scientific evidence. Of course, it is implying immediate ancestors. I do not like this statement because it is used to compare to the creation model. A more accurate por- trayal of evolution is a statement saying that present organisms most likely shared some common ancestory with each other. > 6) The earth's geologic features were fashioned largely by slow, > gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted > to a local scale (uniformitarianism). How infrequent are you talking about? Once a day? Once a millenium? How local are you talking about? With a square mile? Within a con- tinent? Pretty damn vague, if I say so myself. I don't see anything wrong with several thousand meteors striking the entire surface of the earth over a period of several thousand years. It might explain a few things ... perhaps. > 7) The inception of the earth and then of life must have occurred > several billion years ago. Cheap shot debating tactic. (see comment on #7 of creation model) ###################################################################### Overall, the table is nothing more than a comparison between creation and some creationists' view of evolution. Both are incomplete. Where is the mention of the creator? It seems to me that this is simply a political statement of some kind. I don't ever recall any creationist not insisting on the existence of a creator in the form of an intel- ligent, human-like being. As far as I know, all creationists believe in this creator, which just so happens to be the one mentioned in the Bible. (Please! No silly comments from you evolution people!) If my memory serves me correctly, this table was presented to the Arkansas trial and was dismissed as a ridiculous non-scientific comparison of evolution and creationism. (Refer to the judge's statement.) ______________________________________________________________________ Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (03/14/85)
From the creationism list: > > 7) The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been > > relatively recent. ------------ From the evolution list: > > 7) The inception of the earth and then of life must have occurred > > several billion years ago. I don't see any reason to include statement number 7 on the evolution list. The age of the earth is best left to be determined by geologists. The fact is that they're all sure that the earth *is* some billions of years old. Sure, evolution requires vast amounts of time to work. Happily, geologists tell us that there *were* vast amounts of time. If they had found, instead, that the earth was only 10,000 years old, we'd have had to junk evolutionary theory as being inconsistant with reality. Wake up, creationists! The age of the earth is not part of evolutionary theory. It is a geological *fact* which you seem quite happy to ignore. *Scientists* change their theories when they conflict with well established fact. Scientific creationists, on the other hand, ignore the facts when they conflict with their theories. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "If you see her, say hello. She might be in Tangiers. She left here last early spring, is livin' there, I hear."-Dylan