tynor@gitpyr.UUCP (Steve Tynor) (11/15/84)
<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>> From Larry Bickford: > Ray Mooney: > > I am still waiting for a creationist to address the problem of their > > complicated ontology and answer the question "Who created the Creator > > and where is he/she?" > > "Complicated ontology"? Creation is by far the simpler ontology. > The latter question will be answer when "science" answers the issue of > First Cause. Larry, what does First Cause have to do with evolution? The question of First Cause is a philosophical one. What if the universe has existed forever and we're stuck in some kind of cosmic infinite loop? Then there is no First Cause. It certainly doesn't affect the theory of evolution. > Alternatively, one can ask where the material for the Big > Bang (or the Inflationary Universe) came from. Again I ask... What does this have to do with the evolution of life on earth? Evolution does not require the Big Bang. The Big Bang is a cosmological theory quite separate from the biological question of the evolution of life. On the other hand, the concept of supernatural creation requires a supernatural creator, and we must (as scientists) ask how this simplifies matters. We've introduced a new dimension into the natural world (the supernatural) and we must now ask what forces control that creator. Simply arguing that we can't ever know that (which is true enough...) doesn't solve the problem. This supernatural creator is purported to not only create the universe (which is something that science at present cannot counter) but also to have created life on earth species by species. Science, on the other hand, has collected an enormous amount of evidence that (at the risk of sounding dogmatic) convincingly shows that life has evolved. It is certainly easier for the non-scientist to ascribe the origin of life to a supernatural creator. But then it is also easier to ascribe the occasional tornado to an angry god than to trace the miriad of forces that contributed to the generation of the tornado. I'm sure that you agree that the angry god is not needed to explain the tornado, and that his introduction only complicates matters. You may easily expand this analogy to the creation/evolution question. Simply saying that your ontology is simpler won't cut the mustard. You've introduced an entirely new force (with little or no justification) into the natural world. Science relies only on the physical universe which any one of us is free to observe. So I echo Ray Mooney's question: when are we going to hear a creationist confront the matter of their complicated ontology? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Eschew Obfuscation. Steve Tynor Georgia Instutute of Technology ...{akgua, allegra, amd, harpo, hplabs, ihnp4, masscomp, ut-ngp, rlgvax, sb1, uf-cgrl, unmvax, ut-sally} !gatech!gitpyr!tynor