goldman@stolaf.UUCP (Matthew D. Goldman) (05/21/84)
Creationism can not be called a science. In the bible there are TWO differing versions of the creation myth. Creationism and the flap raised by people attempting to have "scientific creationism" taught alongside evolution is simply an attempt to get religion -- Christanity -- back into public schools. Religion has no place in the public school system, if the people who want their children to be exposed to religion would only get their children up earlier and teach their religion in their home everyone would be better off. Otto
drforsey@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Forsey) (08/29/84)
Excerpts are from Larry Bickford's article and are marked by a '>' >Too many assume evolution is *proven*. Forget it - that evolution has >occurred as evolutionists would like us to believe *cannot* be >*scientifically* proven. Neither can creation. It's not an assumption, the process of evolution is a documented phenomenon that is occurring around us all the time. (e.g pesticide resistant insects.) It's a process like a chemical reaction is a process, you can argue that it is not proven that the theoretical constructions ( bonds, activation energies etc ) really exist, (because no-one can see them) but their "existence", in a scientific sense, is proven. At this point you may argue that well, evolution does go on now, but that doesn't prove how life came to be, or that perhaps God created the world in its entirety which includes this more mundane day-to-day version of evolution, which is perhaps the point I think Larry was trying to make. But it's a non-argument. > NATURALISM: the features that are present have arisen wholly > from present laws and processes; > SUPERNATURALISM: present laws and processes are inadequate to > explain current features; therefore, supernatural > intervention must have occurred. >Further, since >the two models are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, evidence against >the naturalistic model compels consideration of the supernatural one. It seems that over the course of human history, the set of what man calls knowledge can be split into two regions, that which can be explained by "scientific" reasons, and that which requires a supernatural one. Over the centuries those things that require a supernatural explanation have become fewer and fewer, and I'm sure at some point that there will be some things that just won't fit. The problem is there is no a-priori way of distinguishing the two, and there is no justification in assuming that because there is no current explanation there will never be one. The use of "therefore" "compels" in the above statements is completely fallacious. >enabling this to occur. But the evolutionary model has a multitude of >secondary assumptions Okay I give up, what are those secondary assumptions? >- things that the model does not *predict*, and >thus must be *explained* - and many of these tend toward the improbable. In addition to predicting the evidence to be found a theory must also be predictive, that is must be able to predict that under a given set of conditions, certain results will be found. Creationism has no such capabilities. >What kind of evidence should one expect to find from such a model? The >Laws of Thermodynamics are an obvious conclusion, and fit well within >the model. I'm just a country boy... what aspects of the law of Thermodynamics does creationism fit that is not adequately covered by more traditional explanations? >The large and *systematic* gaps between kinds of plants and >animals also is predicted by the model. >Life should arise only from life; new kinds should not be appearing. Again could you elucidate further on this, specifically how the model predicts all of this? An explanation of what you mean by "kinds" would also be welcome. Generally I think everyone would welcome a more complete explication of the predictive examples you gave. For example: >fossil structures could extend through several >sedimentary layers; strata would not have to appear in a particular order. I would like the reference to this please. >"living fossils" indicating a fixity of kinds. how does this follow? >Creation *does* stand on its own scientific merits. The evidence is >there. It does not, there is little scientific merit in something that is "proved" before the research is done. By this I mean that one first examines the evidence then proposes the theory, not the other way around. Before the flames start on this point, answer this question: As a creationist, from your understanding of the empirical data, what are the arguments which cast doubt on creationism? When a creationist can give a lucid and complete explanation of the faults and assumptions of creation and how it is derived from (not explained by) the empirical data right from the ground up (pardon the pun), then scientists will listen. David Forsey Computer Graphics Laboratory University of Waterloo Waterloo Canada. (I've seen the light, but now only want to find the switch)
hawk@oliven.UUCP (09/01/84)
>>What kind of evidence should one expect to find from such a model? The >>Laws of Thermodynamics are an obvious conclusion, and fit well within >>the model. > >I'm just a country boy... what aspects of the law of Thermodynamics >does creationism fit that is not adequately covered by more traditional >explanations? The transition from order to disorder. Life requires/is characterized by order. _________ Hey you--yeah, the foot--stop disintegrating--Augh! my leg--my stomach--my chest-- my ne c k ! -- rick (Rick Hawkins @ Olivetti ATC) [hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix]!oliveb!oliven!hawk
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong, Computing Services) (11/26/84)
Creationism is founded upon the belief that Man occupies a special place
in the total scheme of things and there isn't anything else out there
that can have a similar place.
Herb Chong...
I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble....
UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!watdcsu!herbie
CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet
ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
NETNORTH, BITNET: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu
POST: Department of Computing Services
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, ON
N2L 3G1 (519)885-1211 x3524