dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (03/14/85)
I said that I'd try to post some additional comments on my willingness to sign the CRS statement. Here they are. I doubt if this will fully address anyone's curiosity, so just say so if it doesn't. > [Bill Jefferys] > It has been pointed out by several people that it is difficult to determine > exactly what the Creationists on this net actually believe. Even Paul Dubois > admitted to a failure to state his real position clearly. > [Michael Ward] > Once again the issue of what Scientific Creationism is has arisen. > In a recent, very long, posting you admitted that you have been > challenged "often" to state your position, and have failed to > do so. I admitted that I haven't done so, not that I have tried and failed (since, after all, I haven't tried). Not that the difference between the two is terrifically large. > [Bill Jefferys] > In order to > focus this issue, I present here the actual text of the statement that an > applicant for membership in the Creation Research Society (CRS) must > subscribe to. The CRS is based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. > "1. The Bible is the written word of God, and because we believe it to be > inspired thruout, all of its assertions are historically and > scientifically true in all the original autographs. To the students of > nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual > presentation of simple historical truths. > "2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct > creative acts of God during Creation Week as described in Genesis. > Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation have > accomplished only changes within the original created kinds. Just a note here. Whether one believes that Genesis is a factual description or not, it is evidently not a *complete* description. Bacteria, for instance, are not mentioned. > "3. The great Flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the > Noachian Deluge, was an historical event, worldwide in its extent and > scope. > "4. Finally, we are an organization of Christian men of science, who > accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special > creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman, and their subsequent > Fall into sin, is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a > Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can only come thru > accepting Jesus Christ as Savior." > My questions to the Creationists are, first, would you be willing to sign > the above statement? Secondly, if not, which parts of it do you object to, > and why (be specific)? Finally, how would you change the statement to > make it acceptable to you? I'd sign it. However, (and this obviates or vitiates much of the point of Bill's posting) I would not sign it if a clause such as the following were added: "Point (2) means literal week and I will never consider whether it could possibly mean anything else." In point of fact, I do believe it was a literal week - but my dogmatic brain does on occasion entertain other possibilities. Note also that I rarely make statements that *require* this to be literally true, so that if, e.g., Mr. Keebler wishes to rave at me a bit, he should first find the statements I've made regarding the age of the earth and so forth (that is, if he can find any). He shall, I expect, find it difficult, because I'm quite unable to state where my confidence lies. Also, I would sign the statement as a statement of what I believe now. If my beliefs were to change, of course I would have to retract my allegience. So. Now that I have "admitted" to my sympathy with the above statements. I'd be interested to know just what the evolutionists here make of that fact, given that I never (that is, I think I never) base my articles on (i.e., make them contingent on) the Bible or questions of religious belief. In particular, I have derived no proposition from Genesis. That's a pretty flat statement, I guess - but I think it is a fact. Anyone wishing to dispute it is certainly welcome to draw my attention to statements of mine that would imply otherwise. It occurs to me that someone may wish to accuse me of marketing - that is, of concealing my religious beliefs and clothing my arguments in scientific jargon in order to disguise my true motivations and to engender an atmosphere of respectability. If this thought does happen to spring to mind, consider that my approach (no discussion of religion) is, after all, in line with the desires of a number of evolutionists in this group. I have tried to approach you on your own terms, at your own request. I'm perfectly willing to discuss religious questions. But not here. I don't see the point. Now - please state *your* position clearly. I suppose that most of you think that "the" (or at least your) evolutionary position has been made clear. But it has not, and I would assert that it is not clear in exactly the same way as my own position. That is, it is clear that I believe in creation. It is less clear how I regard the biological and paleontological data. Evolutionists clearly believe in evolution. It is less clear exactly what mechanisms you propose to account for, say, speciation. Punctuated Equilibrium? Phyletic gradualism? Chromosomal transformation? Reproductive isolation as a RESULT of geographical isolation? Reproductive isolation by chromosomal transformation as a CAUSE of new species? You should perhaps realize that I, as a creationist, find evolutionist irritation at the non-clarity of the creationist position a bit puzzling. I grant you your right to the conclusion that evolution has occurred. I understand why you believe this. But creationists are equally clear on the "what" of that which they believe: they believe that evolution has *not* occurred. The real question, of course, is HOW. How did evolution occur, or how did creation occur/how does non-evolution maintain? How creation occurred is probably unanswerable. How organismal stability is maintained is open to investigation and is, of course, in need of explication by creationists. When the evolutionist tries to answer HIS side of the "how" question, creationists criticize - of course. But what is really bewildering (to me, at least) is trying to understand just what the evolutionist is saying in answering. Suppose, for example, that the creationist tries to pin down the evolutionist on Darwinism, and criticizes it. Well, that's a century old and a lot of it is invalid, comes the reply. Ok, then. We challenge the synthesis and the central dogma. Will that do? Nope - that stuff's old hat, too. Evolution proceeds in rapid bursts. Oh! All right, then, we examine punctuationalism. Sorry - the cladists are the ones to listen to. Etc. Now, I'm aware that this in one sense means only that there is diversity of opinion. But what do YOU believe? See what I mean? It's not clear to me what most of you espouse, any more than it is clear to you what I espouse. I am aware, too, that criticism of evolution no more proves creation than it proves the man in the moon. However, criticism of evolution may form part of that proof ... but just what is there to criticize? Shooting any particular theory full of holes often (not always) results only in the response that there are others ("waiting in the wings"). But, after all, *one* of them has to work, sometime ... which one do you adhere to? Or are you like me, ambivalently in relation to all creationist theories? By the way, you don't need to tell me that none of this is new. Of course it isn't. But now you know that I think it. Which answers, hopefully, at least part of the question. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | --+-- | "...still waiting for my name..." |