jsm@husky.uucp (Jeff Mapes) (01/28/85)
Thanks to a friend who has access to your net.origins, I have been
reading the postings for several months now with considerable disturbance of
soul. I am neither scientist or theologian (I'm an engineer), so my views
represent a layman's perspective.
First, I am disturbed by the vituperative, arrogant, and condescending
attitude of many of the anti-creationist responses. Creationists are called
dishonest and even stupid. It seems that most posters to the net on both
sides have advanced degrees (many PhD's) and the fact that their conclusions
harmonize with their philosophy may make them wrong but not stupid.
Second, although there seems to be acknowledgement that science is
tentative and only approaches the truth asymptotically, there is a curious
lack of humility -- evolution being portrayed as so solid that all who
question it are labelled incompetent.
Third, although the fact that creationism is embedded in a
philosophical perspective is often pointed out and fully acknowledged by
creationists, it is never acknowledged that evolution is equally embedded in
its philosphical perspective of naturalism. When one group insists that we
can explain all things (eventually) without recourse to the supernatural,
and the other group insists that the ultimate questions have supernatural
answers, we will forever talk *past* each other.
Fourth, creationism is denigrated because there are a few extremists
(like geocentrists) among the ranks. Is not every movement cursed by its
zealots who, in substituting force for finesse or scenario for scientific
method, do more harm than good for their cause? It is unfair to caricature
an entire movement from such out-wingers.
Fifth, I think it would be impossible for anyone to approach the
subject of origins with a completely unbiased mind, knowledgeably weigh all
evidence, and then announce his conclusion. The impossible part is the
unbiased mind. We arrive at intellectual maturity already biased by our
upbringing. This is why if anyone converts from creation to evolution or
vice-versa, it is always preceded by a philosophical conversion. It would
be interesting to hear from any who have experienced such conversion and
what the process was that precipitated it.
Sixth, is not evolution based entirely on circumstantial evidence and
does not circumstantial evidence make a weak case? The fact that we can
arrange things in categories of similarity doesn't, of itself, prove
descendency relationships. If God did create all creatures, an amoeba would
still be most unlike man and chimpanzees most like man.
Seventh, creationists are frequently accused of misquoting, quoting out
of context, and misrepresenting evolutionist writers. Certainly zealous
carelessness may unfortunately and occasionally occur in this area and is
not excusable. But the intent is normally to show from the writings of the
evolutionists themselves that evolution is not a monolith of absolute
verity, but, as with any other search for truth, is fraught with dead ends,
contradictions, unanswered questions, anomalies, expectation-slanted
results, and ever-zealous extrapolations. As the weaknesses of the
creationist argument are so mercilessly probed, is it not legitimate,
expected and proper for creationists to expose the weaknesses of
evolutionism, especially when they are recognized by its own adherents?
Finally, is not the most telling argument for creation and against
evolution the simple logical statement: For every effect, there must be a
greater cause. This would seem to relegate spontaneous upward evolution to
the realm of logical and physical impossibility.
David L. Kipp
send mail "care of": (decvax, seismo)!rochester!ritcv!husky!jsmdimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (01/30/85)
[] > Sixth, is not evolution based entirely on circumstantial evidence and >does not circumstantial evidence make a weak case? Who was it who made the remark about some circumstantial evidence being strong, such as finding a trout in the milk?
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (01/30/85)
In article <126@husky.uucp> jsm@husky.uucp (Jeff Mapes) writes: > > First, I am disturbed by the vituperative, arrogant, and condescending >attitude of many of the anti-creationist responses. Creationists are called >dishonest and even stupid. I agree, the language has often gotten out of hand, I have tried, I hope successfully, to avoid that in my postings. > Second, although there seems to be acknowledgement that science is >tentative and only approaches the truth asymptotically, there is a curious >lack of humility -- evolution being portrayed as so solid that all who >question it are labelled incompetent. Truth may only be approached asymptotically, but the broad principles of evolution are *very* solidly based in evidence; more so than such things as quantum theory and astrophysics. Therefore, it is highly unprofessional to toss it out without equally strong *evidence*. > Third, although the fact that creationism is embedded in a >philosophical perspective is often pointed out and fully acknowledged by >creationists, it is never acknowledged that evolution is equally embedded in >its philosphical perspective of naturalism. When one group insists that we >can explain all things (eventually) without recourse to the supernatural, >and the other group insists that the ultimate questions have supernatural >answers, we will forever talk *past* each other. Two responses. First the very basis of science is "naturalism", thus any concept that does not fit in that perspective cannot be a *scientific* concept. Second, evolution is not as deeply emdedded in a naturalist perspespective as you believe, at least not as you define the term. I am not a naturalist in the sense you define it, yet I am an "evolutionist". I do believe in supernatural causes, but I believe them to be beyond the scope of science. In fact I believe all events have *both* a "natural" and a "supernatural" cause. > Sixth, is not evolution based entirely on circumstantial evidence and >does not circumstantial evidence make a weak case? The fact that we can >arrange things in categories of similarity doesn't, of itself, prove >descendency relationships. If God did create all creatures, an amoeba would >still be most unlike man and chimpanzees most like man. No, or at least not any more than any scientific theory. In fact the totality of the evidence is very strong. the evidence includes much more than just similarity categories, tho that was what first suggested it to such people as Darwin. It includes much of genetics, the fossil record and molecular biology as well. In fact throwing out evolutionary theory would require as much of a reorganization of biology as throwing out quantum mechanics would require of physics, since much of current theory is based on the assumptions of evolution. And it *works*. > Seventh, creationists are frequently accused of misquoting, quoting out >of context, and misrepresenting evolutionist writers. Certainly zealous >carelessness may unfortunately and occasionally occur in this area and is >not excusable. But the intent is normally to show from the writings of the >evolutionists themselves that evolution is not a monolith of absolute >verity, but, as with any other search for truth, is fraught with dead ends, >contradictions, unanswered questions, anomalies, expectation-slanted >results, and ever-zealous extrapolations. As the weaknesses of the >creationist argument are so mercilessly probed, is it not legitimate, >expected and proper for creationists to expose the weaknesses of >evolutionism, especially when they are recognized by its own adherents? The problem with this is unreasonable expectation of science. ANY growing field will be full of (apparent) contradictions &c. this does *not* show any weakness in the basic principles of that field, it in fact shows just the opposite. I would be *scared* if evolutionary theory ever became a "monolith of verity". This is in fact my main objection to creationism, it does not allow for disagreement or alteration in the face of new evidence. What the creationist often do is take an argument against some detail of some researchers view of evolutionary theory and try to make it an argument against the whole structure. > Finally, is not the most telling argument for creation and against >evolution the simple logical statement: For every effect, there must be a >greater cause. This would seem to relegate spontaneous upward evolution to >the realm of logical and physical impossibility. > This is based on a semantic confusion. The statement about causes uses 'greater' to mean 'greater in magnitude', that is 'larger' You seem to be using it to mean 'greater in value', which is something else entirely. Also evolution is *not* strictly upward, it is concieved of as going whereever it can. Evolution often leads to gross simplification, study the anatomy of a tape worm sometime. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or quad1!psivax!friesen