hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (03/07/85)
______________________________________________________________________ > > > "But just try to see how far you'd get with AAAS, NAS, or NSF > > > if you dare to oppose evolution (on scientific grounds, of > > > course)." > > > I am not exactly sure what you meant. Well, in any case, these > > organizations will certainly not accept creationism because it > > is not scientific. I do not know of any DOGMATIC requirements > > for membership in them. (No one must swear that Darwin's > > ORIGINS is absolute truth.) > > They wouldn't be so bold as to make it explicit. But it's like a lot of > other places - there are a lot of unwritten rules that you just don't > buck (and expect to get away with it). Anything that would hurt > evolution or support creation is one of them. It doesn't get much > publicity because the media is about as supportive of creation as NSF et > al. But the cases of Gentry, Velikovsky (a threatened boycott of > MacMillan if they published his work) and others indicates the implicit > rules. Saying "It isn't scientific" a priori is a cop-out. You cannot expect everyone to be perfect in the adherance to ideals. On the other hand, the ICR and the CRS and others are totally out of line. As I have explained many times before, God is NOT scientific no matter how you slice it. The problems lies in the concept's ap- peal to the scientific method and its qualification as a scientific theory. (NO! It has nothing to do with its ability to be proven! It has to do with its ability to be DISPROVEN. If it can't, it is ridiculous to even consider, and creationism certainly is, because you can't even begin to argue against it, so it is, at best, a waste of time. It's like saying that there is life on other planets. At this moment in time, no one can prove or disprove that statement, so why bother raising it? For creationism, the creator is beyond nature BY DEFINITION. That means science can NEVER prove or disprove it, since science only deal with the natural.) I am NOT saying creationism "isn't scientific" a priori. I am say- ing creationism isn't scientific because I know it isn't. It is very simple and clean from the ground up. Creationism is based on an as- umption that is NOT valid. (I am talking about the existence of a creator. This must be an assumption because you cannot prove or dis- prove it. It is not valid because for the same reasons.) > > What I find very offensive about the ICR and the CRS and the > > like is their insistence that they are scientific when it is > > clear (from a close examination of their positions and their > > so-called "research") that they are completely religiously > > oriented. You cannot accuse scientific organizations of > > being "narrow-minded" if what you expect them to accept is > > beyond their scope. Sometimes that isn't even their accusation. > > (see Duncan Buell's NEWS FROM THE FRONTLINE which I posted > > a few weeks ago.) > > Creation-science research is devoted to presenting the *scientific* > evidences for creation (and, as a necessary sidelight, exposing the > gaping holes in evolution, which the evolutionist community doesn't talk > about). You might also find, if you researched it better, that Darwinism > has become a religion (cf. Norman Macbeth's _Darwin Retried_; Macbeth is > not a creationist). I'll admit there are a lot who will try to use > almost anything to support creation; ICR & CRS are looking for solid > *scientific* evidence around which to build a case. And they've done it. First, I would like to see them get around the problem with the supernatural creator. Second, I would like to see this scientific evidence that you refer to. I know that the ICR and the CRS have made numerous claims to scientific evidence. I have yet to see them produce one that is valid. > What I expect from establishment science is honesty and ethics. They > have deliberately suppressed the flow of information to the public - > information which would show that evolution isn't the neat & tidy > package that they've been handed. I also expect them to recognize what > science can *never* reach - but their claim is that all must lie within > the material. Such materialism is prejudicial. Since when has science deliberately suppressed the flow of infor- mation to the public? If it is classified research, I am interested in how you obtained such information, and whether you get arrested or not. I do not know of any reason for which evolutionary research could be considered classified. If you are griping about the lack of talk about evolutionary goof-ups, you might want to know something about common sense ... if you made a big discovery, who would cover it? Newsweek? Time? the evening news? if you made a big flop, who would cover it? Newsweek? hardly. Time? doubtful. The National Enquirer's science section? a good possibility. Would you even consider publishing your big flop? Not really. Science journals are not here to cover the big flops unless their implica- tions are big. One difficult piece of evidence does NOT constitute a big problem for a widely supported theory. Evolution, the process is NOT a theory. It is a fact of nature. There is no magical limit that separate "low level" and "high level" evolution. There is no such thing as a transitional form, in its strict definition. You either have to go with that, or you will have to go with everything being transitional forms. etc... The theories about the process are the "hotly debated" items that creationist love to pick on because they want to make it look like evolution, the process, is questionable. Since when has science pushed evolution, the theories, as a "neat and tidy" package? Since when is anything in science a "neat and tidy" package? Are you suggesting that there is a finality in re- search? Are you suggesting that there is an ultimate truth that science will find. If you are, you are exhibiting a GROSS ERROR! Please tell me what you refer to by what science can never reach. If it is within the realm of nature, science can eventually reach it; it is only a matter of time. If it is not, science can never reach it. Therefore, don't waste your breath pushing something beyond nature as science. > > This is a clear example of a creationist technique: Picking at examples > > that evolution may not fully explain. > Try "can never explain." Evolution says that dinosaurs were long gone > before man. The tracks, which no one can doubt were made at the same > time, show that those who made them existed at the same time. Please give me the evidence supporting your claim. I don't accept that Soviet paper as a reliable source. If it is indeed undeniable, as you so self-assuringly claim, please give me some second sources. You creationists have very little difficulty finding second sources. (NO! I do not want something published by the ICR! If I do not have evidence to justify their claims, I will NOT accept their lit- erature!) > > In fact, when are you going to provide a clear description of the theory > > of special creation?! It seems that creationists have avoided that to > > give themselves the ability to be vague and self-contradicting. > > To the latter - hardly. Anything a creationist says is immediately > twisted by the evolutionists. Try the contrary ... Here is a quick example: Steven Jay Gould once published an essay entitled "Evolution as a Fact and a Theory". I have seen several articles by creationist deliberately twisting the direction of the essay. One does this blatantly by stating that title and then saying something to the effect of "... well, when are they going to make up their minds? Is it a fact or a theory? ..." This is an obvious example of deliberate misquotation and gross misinterpretation. The comment was in a set of three pamphlets written by an Austrailian (or New Zealand, I forget which) minister who supposedly gave up a "pro- mising career in organic chemistry to spread the word about the ONE who called to him." Hardly a reliable scientist. > But to the point: from ICR's May and June 1981 Impact Articles: | | { this is a reformatted version of the table that he quoted | and that I just posted. } | | | CREATION MODEL AND EVOLUTION MODEL | | (According to the May and June 1983 issues of ICR's | Impact Articles as quoted by Larry Brickford.) | _________________________________________________________________ | | The creation model includes the scientific evidence and the re- | lated inferences suggesting that: | | 1) The universe and the solar system were suddenly created. | | 2) Life was suddenly created. | | 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. | | 4) Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have | brought about any emergence of present kinds from a simple pri- | mordial organism. | | 5) Man and apes have a separate ancestry. | | 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). | | 7) The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been | relatively recent. | _________________________________________________________________ | | 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. | | 2) Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes. | | 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. | | 4) Mutation and natural selection have brought about the emer- | gence of present complex kinds from a simple primordial organism. | | 5) Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor. | | 6) The earth's geologic features were fashioned largely by slow, | gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted | to a local scale (uniformitarianism). | | 7) The inception of the earth and then of life must have occurred | several billion years ago. | | | { I will deal with this later ... } | | > > And please answer this: Why do the NSF and other science organizations > > reject creationism?! Is it because they are not Christians?! > > It is not because they do not like the science; it is because they want > to avoid the inevitable conclusion. Even in the last century, evolution > was gaining acceptance, not because of scientific validity, but because > "it finally freed us from accountability [to a Creator]." They realize > full well that the only real alternative to evolution is creation, and > thus they even suppress evidence which would make evolution look like > Swiss Cheese. (Like when an Ivy League professor scissored out Ron > Brady's article from the library copy of December 1979 _Systematic > Zoology_ so students wouldn't read it.) Please give me evidence of this incident. Also, give me evidence of your claim that evolution was gaining acceptance (I assume that you are talking about the scientific community; other acceptances are irrelevant.) was because "it finally freed us from accountability [to a Creator]." WHO?! Who realized full well that creation is the only alternative to evolution? Who realized that creation would make evolution look like swiss cheese? Not me. I have yet to see anything that even remotely justify your outlandish claims. You obviously have been brainwashed by too many political doctrines that the ICR and the CRS publish, or you are simply too naive to want to accept your individual responsiblities that you need to turn to a god in order to be "accountable" to someone. This raises more questions: Are you bothered by the fact that science cannot support God? Are you bothered by the fact that science is a very reliable way of explaining nature? So reliable, in fact, that oil drillers hire real geologists, not the so-called "flood geologists". Are you trying to abuse this fact by using its name to support some- thing it could not possibly support by its very foundation? I think the answers to all of these questions, especially the last, is YES. As I have mentioned before, creationism dictates the existence of one creator. Who is to say that there might not be more than one, if any at all? What creationism says is not com- pleted. The quick summary you provided above is nowhere near full, for evolution or creation. The scientific implications go much further than what is indicated. You will have to des- troy all of science before you can even begin to establish creationism as logical and consistent with nature. I will insist that you deal with the problem of God. I have yet to see anyone deal with it. Actually, someone did try to brush it aside once by raising some ridiculous counter-argument. ______________________________________________________________________ Keebler