lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (12/07/84)
[Due to a recent Qubix policy statement regarding non-technical newsgroups, this may be my last posting for a while. Despite the rather hot nature of the subject, I have appreciated those, especially Pat Wyant, who have kept the discussion on *science* rather than *religion.* For those interested, I will still be available by e-mail.] First from Ethan: [snakes, lizards, and chickens] > My comment was that based on the fossil record, *and assuming > evolution*, people predicted exactly the relationship that the > biochemists have found. My turn to clarify: *what* in the fossil record a priori indicated that snakes split off from lizards before chickens did? > What is a "missing link"? A basic definition would be a viable transitional form, which clearly demonstrates its ancestry and posterity. The current gaps cover more than a few changes. When did the fins disappear? When did feet arise? Where did animals branch off from plants? When did sea squirts start turning into fish? When did backbones begin developing? [predictions from the evolutionary model] >1. That the future discovery of fossils would fit into the evolutionary > pattern. This is a tight constraint in some ways and loose in others. > Gross anachronisms are clearly forbidden, but when a lineage is > poorly known, then almost any discovery of intermediate forms is > consistent with evolution. By this standard, every area of the fossil record would be a "poorly known lineage." The recent ('70s) discoveries of true birds contemporary with Archeopteryx is causing some rewriting of avian history. > 2. That the sequence of rocks in the geologic column would prove to be > a true sequence of relative ages when and if a reliable method of > determining ages was established. The dice are loaded to start with, since the ages published for any rock are almost always tempered by the fossils found therein. The stories of outrageous radiometric ages are well-known. And getting the age estimates to agree is a job in itself. > 3. That the relationships deduced from the fossil record would be > validated by any other means discovered the degree of kinship > between species. Some 50 lines before this, Ethan notes that the "ordering of relationships between man and the great apes" came from "biochemical evidence" - not the fossil record. > Now it is worth noting that no one has ever proposed (on this net to > my knowledge) any tests of predictions of creationism. I know the article didn't get eaten, because Gino Bloch replied to it. Robert Gentry of the Oak Ridge National Laboratories has put forth two public challenges to test creation: 1. Make granite. Start with the basic elements. Apply heat, chill, pressure, vacuum, whatever - just synthesize one piece of granite. Claim: granite was created. 2. "If anyone will synthesize a single polonium-218 halo in a piece of granite, I will abandon my claim that they were formed by primordial polonium-218." Claim: The rocks were created with Po-218 inclusions. The ball's in your court, Ethan. Steve Tynor: > Larry, what does First Cause have to do with evolution? Evolution presupposes materialism - that the answer, though it is not yet found, must still lie within the "natural." Contention: the First Cause cannot lie within the "natural." That is a matter for scientific study. > What if the universe has existed forever and we're stuck in some kind > of cosmic infinite loop? First, find out what sucked up all that entropy... > The Big Bang is a cosmological theory quite separate from the > biological question of the evolution of life. The study of origins encompasses many areas. Cosmology is used as a rug under which evolutionists sweep one aspect of origins study. > The concept of supernatural creation requires a supernatural creator... Yes, it does. It is a rejection of materialism, and an admission that there *does* (not *can* or *may*) exist an area where needed answers are, but is outside the realm of science to know. This goes beyond the "we'll figure it out someday" to "you *can't* figure it." > ...it is also easier to ascribe the occasional tornado to an angry god > than to trace the myriad of forces that contributed to the generation > of the tornado. For scientific study, tornadoes are far more than "occasional," and thus lend themselves to scientific study. Your statement confuses the "why" with the "how." Greg Woods (several others are making the same point) > If an event has a probability of occurring that is greater than zero... In _The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution_, A.E.Wilder Smith spares no pain to show that the probability is NOT greater than zero. Brian Peterson: > X Davidheiser's last sentence in _Evolution and Christian Faith_ (yes, > X I'm plugging it): > X "It is not a matter of refusing to examine facts. > X It is a matter of substituting one faith for another." > I don't know what faith it is that you (in quoting Davidheiser) claim > evolutionists have. > I think that faith in > what one observes with his body, > and that the nature of the world seems to have patterns, > is enough to live on (wrt relating to reality). > And I think that is all science is supposed to have. As I've noted above, evolutionary faith is materialistic. It deals with firsts, yet there is a First that materialism cannot deal with. On November 5, 1981, the senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History (Colin Patterson) said in a talk at the American Museum that he now realizes that in accepting evolution he had moved from science into faith. In _Darwin Retried_, Norman Macbeth further amplifies on this - and he wrote it 10 years before Patterson's statement. > Evolution has more evidence for it (I'm sure y'all've seen SOME, anyway) Almost all I've seen presupposes evolution. And there's a lot against it. > So evolution is only "kinda-sortof true." Then eliminate it from the classroom altogether. (Then you won't have to worry about creation in the public schools :-) Wayne Faustus: > the creationists believe that the proper way to think is to accept the > "word of God", and trust what people have been thinking for thousands > of years. This is the classic myth of the media and establishment science. Science is, as Stanley Friesen followed up to the above, "a method of inquiry based on looking at the facts and drawing conclusions from them." That is the basis of *scientific* creation, and that is how it should be taught. Patrick Wyant: > The first is the assertion that evolution begins with disorganized > matter and ends with Homo sapiens. As written by Darwin, evolution as > a biological principle begins with the existence of living organisms > and attempts to describe the present relationships among living > organisms. The admittedly large step of abiogenesis is not subsumed > under traditional evolutionary theory. Then "traditional evolutionary theory" has some growing to do, rather than sweeping the problem under the rug. It is well said by evolutionists that the fossil record is missing at least 90% of the record of life - the *first* 90%. -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {amd,decwrl,sun,idi,ittvax}!qubix!lab You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (12/10/84)
In article <1572@qubix.UUCP> lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) writes: > >> So evolution is only "kinda-sortof true." > >Then eliminate it from the classroom altogether. (Then you won't have to >worry about creation in the public schools :-) > And what about quantum physics, whic is also only "kinda-sortof true". Should we eliminate that also? And then there's astrophysics, which is based on *extrapolation*. In fact every branch of science is admittedly tentative, and incomplete. Thus by this argument we should stop teaching science altogether. > >Then "traditional evolutionary theory" has some growing to do, rather >than sweeping the problem under the rug. It is well said by >evolutionists that the fossil record is missing at least 90% of the >record of life - the *first* 90%. >-- The issue is *not* being swept under the rug, it is merely being left to those most qualified to handle it. Biotic evolution and abiogenises are completely *different* branches of biology, and properly so. They involve different methods, and tools; someone with training and experience in one would not necessarily be qualified for the other. This is the basis of specialization in science. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|burdvax|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen