miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP (10/27/84)
This is the first in the series of Students for Origins Research "Origins" pamphlets (2nd edition). They are in a PRELIMINARY (read: not final) form. The intended target audience is undergraduate students in public universities. There will be 5 in all: 1: The Creation/Evolution Debate 2: The Origin of Life 3: The Fossil Record 4: The Geological Table (3 & 4 might be switched in order) 5: The Age of the Earth I hope to get one done every two weeks, but I can't promise that timetable. Comments by *both* sides are sought. I don't expect the evolutionists to agree with the conclusions (obviously, or else they wouldn't be evolutionists) but I would like to hear what you have to say. I won't have time to reply, as just working on these pamphlets will take all of my spare time until they are completed. I'll save your replies, though, and try and get back to some of the more important ones after it is all finished. Personal replies from creation- ists may be mailed to me (uiucdcs!miller) if you don't want to deal with the flames of the net. I expect many "closet creationists" may want to take this route, and I would like to hear what you have to say also. I value everyone's opinions. I'm uploading this stuff from my p.c. at home. When it is in a final form, we'll ship it off and have it typeset along with the illustrations. A. Ray Miller Univ Illinois
miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP (10/27/84)
ORIGINS
No. 1: The Creation/Evolution Debate
With the close of the 1925 Scopes Trial, many people thought the
creation/evolution debate was over. Yet, recent polls show that at
least 86% of the American population would like to see creationism re-
turned to the public schools [1]. Despite such overwhelming public
support, creationists face severe opposition from their evolutionary
colleagues. Professors have been fired, research funding has been
cut, papers have been rejected without even being read, and students
have been expelled [2,3]. What is it about this issue that generates
so much controversy? Why are thousands of scientists today rejecting
evolution? What is scientific creationism and how does it differ from
evolution?
EVOLUTION
Evolutionists believe that life originated on the early earth
when various elements combined to form primitive, single-celled organ-
isms. Over billions of years, mutations (or errors) in the reproduc-
tive process occurred. Supposedly, some of these mutations were help-
ful, and so the organisms increased in complexity and diversity. All
of life as we know it today, including plants, fish, amphibians, rep-
tiles, birds, mammals, and humans, are believed to have descended from
this simple beginning. The great complexities of life and all that we
see can be explained by nothing more than time, chance, and the innate
properties of matter.
Evolutionists view the order of the fossil record, from bottom to
top, as a history of this evolutionary development. Most (but not
all) evolutionists believe in the concept of ``uniformitarianism'',
i.e., slow, steady, uniform processes are responsible for the forma-
tion of the bulk of the geological column and the fossils it contains.
CREATION
In contrast, creationists feel that when life first appeared, it
did so in many forms, all designed by an intelligent Creator. All
plants and animals were created structurally complete and reproduced
after their own kind. The genetic material within each kind of plant
or animal has a certain amount of variability built in. Thus, they
can adapt (within limits) to new environments, but will never develop
into radically new kinds of organisms. Since the initial creation
period, only extinctions have occurred, and no new kinds of plants or
animals have developed. For example, dogs could diversify into the
large number of breeds we have today, but would never be able to
change into some totally different animal, such as a cat or a horse.
Creationists view the fossil record, from bottom to top, not as
the order in which organisms evolved, but rather as the order in which
organisms were buried. It is interesting to note that, by and large,
the predicted order is the same for creationists and evolutionists,
but for entirely different reasons (more on this in later pamphlets).
Most (but not all) creationists believe in the concept of ``catastro-
phism'', i.e., catastrophic (primarily hydraulic) processes are
responsible for the formation of the bulk of the geological column and
the fossils it contains.
THE NATURE OF SCIENCE
Strictly speaking, the scientific method can only be applied to
events which are repeatable, testable, and observable. The study of
origins, however, is a study of events which occurred in the past. No
scientist was around to observe the origin of life on this planet -
whether it occurred through creation or evolution. Harrison Matthews,
a British biologist and evolutionist, wrote in his introduction to the
1971 publication of Darwin's _T_h_e _O_r_i_g_i_n _o_f _S_p_e_c_i_e_s that: ``The fact of
evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the pecu-
liar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it
then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus
exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts
which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has
been capable of proof'' [4].
Technically then, since the study of origins deals to a large ex-
tent with historical events, the word model and not theory or proof is
more appropriate when discussing creation and evolution. Both models
should be used to correlate and observe data in the fields of geology,
paleontology, thermodynamics, biology, genetics, etc. And, as with
all competing models, the one which correlates the largest amount of
data with the smallest number of unresolved contradictions should be
selected as the one most probably correct.
Finally, many evolutionists claim that since most creationists
believe in the Biblical account of Genesis, creationism is inherently
religious and not scientific like evolution. This is wrong for at
least two reasons. First, there are many religions which incorporate
evolution, rather than creation, as tenets of their faiths [5]. Next,
whether or not a belief is scientific does not depend upon which reli-
gions do or do not agree with that belief, but upon the type of evi-
dence supporting that belief. If a scientist offers scientific evi-
dence to support his belief in creation/evolution, then he is dealing
with scientific creationism/evolutionism. If, on the other hand, that
same person offers theological arguments to support his belief in
creation/evolution, then he is dealing with theological
creationism/evolutionism. Both can be equally religious, and both can
be equally scientific.
This series of pamphlets will attempt to provide an introduction
into the basis of scientific creationism. Though necessarily brief,
it is hoped that the objective reader will begin to see why an in-
creasing number of scientists are turning to creationism as the best
answer to the question: ``Which model fits the data better?''
REFERENCES
[1] Associated Press - NBC News poll, Oct. 25-26, 1981.
[2] _C_r_e_a_t_i_o_n _M_a_g_a_z_i_n_e, Creation Science Legal Defense Fund, July 1984,
pp. 10-11.
[3] _C_r_e_a_t_i_o_n _M_a_g_a_z_i_n_e, Creation Science Legal Defense Fund, Aug. 1984,
p. 9.
[4] L. Harrison Matthews, ``Introduction,'' _T_h_e _O_r_i_g_i_n _o_f _S_p_e_c_i_e_s, by
Charles Darwin (London, J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., 1971), p. x.
[5] Henry Morris, _T_h_e _T_r_o_u_b_l_e_d _W_a_t_e_r_s _o_f _E_v_o_l_u_t_i_o_n (San Diego, Master
Book Publishers, 1974).
For more information on this topic:
Henry Morris, _S_c_i_e_n_t_i_f_i_c _C_r_e_a_t_i_o_n_i_s_m (San Diego, Master Book Publish-
ers, 1974).
Henry Morris and Gary Parker, _W_h_a_t _i_s _C_r_e_a_t_i_o_n _S_c_i_e_n_c_e? (San Diego,
Master Book Publishers, 1982).
Henry Morris, _H_i_s_t_o_r_y _o_f _M_o_d_e_r_n _C_r_e_a_t_i_o_n_i_s_m (San Diego, Master Book
Publishers, 1984).
Randy Wysong, _T_h_e _C_r_e_a_t_i_o_n-_E_v_o_l_u_t_i_o_n _C_o_n_t_r_o_v_e_r_s_y (Midland, Michigan,
Inquiry Press, 1976).
last revision: fall 1984
Students for Origins Research
P.O. Box 203
Goleta, CA 93116-0203rmooney@uicsl.UUCP (10/28/84)
>THE NATURE OF SCIENCE > Strictly speaking, the scientific method can only be applied to >events which are repeatable, testable, and observable. The study of >origins, however, is a study of events which occurred in the past. No >scientist was around to observe the origin of life on this planet - >whether it occurred through creation or evolution. ... > Technically then, since the study of origins deals to a large ex- >tent with historical events, the word model and not theory or proof is >more appropriate when discussing creation and evolution. Both models >should be used to correlate and observe data in the fields of geology, >paleontology, thermodynamics, biology, genetics, etc. And, as with >all competing models, the one which correlates the largest amount of >data with the smallest number of unresolved contradictions should be >selected as the one most probably correct. Many sciences cannot make direct use of a "scientific method" which requires being able to directly manipulate or observe the entity under study. In astronomy, vast distances and scale prohibit direct experimentation and in human physiology and psychology, ethical reasons prevent such manipulation. When astronomers view a distant galaxy it is just as much in the past as the origin of life. In many areas scientists must be content with just observing what evidence nature has to offer since they are unable to perform controlled experiments. To outlaw such terms as "theories" in such areas is to be very naive about the "nature of science." Perhaps someone who has such a logical positivist view of science should take the time to read Kuhn. If anything, such terms as "fact" and "proof" if interpreted strictly should be outlawed from *all* science, since no theory based on empirical evidence can be asserted to be "eternal truth" and not subject to change. This is an obvious result of the use of inductive logic. I therefore find the introduction of such obfuscatory terminology as "model" to be unnecessary and evasive. However, despite mine and others continuous raising of the importance of "Occam's Razor" with regard to the nature of scientific explanations, A. Ray and creationists in general have insisted on concentrating on technical details and ignored the forest while studying the trees. Even in his discussion on the "Nature of Science" A. Ray still fails to address this issue. 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?" Ray Mooney ..ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!rmooney University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
clyde@ut-ngp.UUCP (Clyde W. Hoover) (10/31/84)
Silly humans! The entire galaxy knows that your cruddy little planet was built by the Magrathea Planet Works about 10 million years ago on contract from a race of hyper-intelligent, pan-dimensional beings who got tired of playing Brokien Ultra-Cricket and decided to find out the Ultimate Answer to "Life, the Universe and Everything." Oh yes, it seems that the Galactic Planning Department has been mumbling something about a hyperspace bypass in your area of the galaxy, so I'd get ready to leave on short notice. (If you need help, talk to either the mice or dolphins.) :-) -- Shouter-To-Dead-Parrots @ Univ. of Texas Computation Center; Austin, Texas "Let's show this prehistoric bitch how we do things downtown" clyde@ut-ngp.ARPA, clyde@ut-sally.ARPA ...!ihnp4!ut-ngp!clyde, ...!allegra!ut-ngp!clyde
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (11/05/84)
> Evolutionists view the order of the fossil record, from bottom to > top, as a history of this evolutionary development. Most (but not > all) evolutionists believe in the concept of ``uniformitarianism'', > i.e., slow, steady, uniform processes are responsible for the forma- > tion of the bulk of the geological column and the fossils it contains. > ... > Creationists view the fossil record, from bottom to top, not as > the order in which organisms evolved, but rather as the order in which > organisms were buried. It is interesting to note that, by and large, > the predicted order is the same for creationists and evolutionists, > but for entirely different reasons (more on this in later pamphlets). > Most (but not all) creationists believe in the concept of ``catastro- > phism'', i.e., catastrophic (primarily hydraulic) processes are > responsible for the formation of the bulk of the geological column and > the fossils it contains. In fact, a close look at the creationist "model" of Flood Geology reveals it to be little more than a handwaving attempt to explain facts about the geological record that in fact constitute an acute embarrassment to creationism. There is no creationist attempt at any quantitative analysis or detailed field work to support this idea, and in fact even a cursory look at the actual geological record reveals facts that completely contradict the main predictions of Flood Geology. Flood Geology is an attempt to explain the fossil sequence. That sequence was established in its main outlines by geologists in the early nineteenth century. The fact that certain fossils appear in lower strata and others appear in higher strata can be used to establish a "geologic column". Contrary to the assertions of some creationists, no assumption of evolution is required to establish the geologic column. Rather, rocks are defined as Cambrian, Permian, etc. by the presence within them of certain index fossils, used solely as markers. The same reasoning would work if the different strata were identified because they were colored differently (e.g., if Permian rocks were red and Cambrian rocks blue) instead of being identified by the fact that they contain different fossils. The sequencing of the strata also implies no assumption of evolution. It is simply found that strata identified as Permian are invariably found above those identified as Cambrian and below those identified as Cretaceous, whenever two of the strata are found together. The theory of evolution in fact came *after* the main facts about the geologic column had already been established. One of evolution's triumphs is that it provides a natural explanation of these facts. Flood Geology, on the other hand, is in complete contradiction to the observed record. To quote Robert Schadewald ['Six "Flood" Arguments Creationists Can't Answer', *Creation/Evolution* Issue IX, Summer 1982], "At all costs, creationists avoid discussing how fossils came to be stratified as they are. Out of the thousands of pages that Henry Morris has written on creationism, only a dozen or so are devoted to this critical subject, and he achieves that page count only by recycling three simple apologetics in several books. The mechanisms he offers might be called victim habitat, victim mobility, and hydraulic sorting. In practice, the victim habitat and mobility apologetics are generally combined. Creationists argue that the Flood would first engulf marine animals, then slow lowland creatures such as reptiles, while wily and speedy humans escaped to the hilltops. To a creationist, this adequately explains the order in which fossils appear in the geologic column. A scientist might test the mobility hypothesis by examining how well it explains the fact that flowering plants don't occur in the Cretaceous era. A scenario with magnolias (a primitive plant) heading for the hills, only to be overwhelmed along with early mammals, is unconvincing. And when marine fossils are found in many places above those of land animals and plants, the victim habitat apologetic loses all credibility too. "If explanations based on victim habitat and mobility are absurd, the hydraulic sorting apologetic is flatly contradicted by the fossil record. An object's hydrodynamic drag is directly proportional to its cross-sectional area and its drag coefficient. Therefore, when objects with the same density and the same drag coefficient move through a fluid, they are sorted according to size. (Mining engineers utilize this phenomena [sic] in some ore separation processes.) This means that all small trilobites should be found higher in the fossil record than large ones. Since this is not what we find, the hydraulic sorting argument is immediately falsified. Indeed, one wonders how Henry Morris could ever have offered it, given his background as a hydraulic engineer." It should be mentioned that the above examples are but the tip of the iceberg. Why are small fossil whales found much higher than the similarly sized fossil sharks? Were ferns unable to run as fast as flowering plants, so that the floods overtook them sooner :-? Indeed, if Morris' arguments are to be taken seriously, why has absolutely no detailed observational work been done on these hypotheses whatsoever? Remember, these people are claiming to be scientists. Where is the effort that any moderately good scientist would have put into testing the hypothesis? Handwaving is fine in the early stages of thinking about a theory, but it cannot substitute for the painstaking work required to check the theory against observation. There are many other places where the Flood Geology scenario utterly fails. An example is found later in Schadewald's article: "Ever since the geological arguments of George McCready Price became a mainstay of creationism in the 1920's and 1930's, many creationists have tried to point out places in the earth where fossils appear in the opposite order for evolution. They claim that reversals in the order prove that the geologic column is fiction. They then challenge scientists to come up with an explanation. "Actually, scientists have a good explanation for this reversal in the fossil order. They point to obvious signs of folding in the strata, which reveal how the ancient sediments have been flipped over. In such places, it should be expected that the geologic column would read backwards. "When it is not so obvious that this has occurred, there is another way to tell. If rock strata containing trilobites are overturned, the trilobites that are usually found belly down in the rock will now be found belly up. Other things which show geologists and paleontologists which way is up include worm and brachiopod burrows, footprints, fossilized mud cracks, raindrop craters, graded bedding, and similar evidence. "It is really creationists who have no explanation for such strata. Could the flood suddenly reverse the laws of gravity and lay *up* sediments and fossils instead of laying them *down*? Upside-down sediments are clearly a problem for the creation model. This isn't surprising, however, given that right-side-up sediments seem to be a problem for it, too." These are but two of a very large number of problems that "Flood Geology" has with the actual geologic record. Schadewald lists four other equally good ones. The book *Christianity and the Age of the Earth*, written by an "old-earth" creationist geologist, Davis A. Young [Zondervan 1982], details a number of others in chapter 6. Indeed, creationists as well as evolutionists would do well to read this book. Among other things, he remarks: "The maintenance of modern creationism and Flood geology not only is useless apologetically with unbelieving scientists, it is harmful. Although many who have no scientific training have been swayed by creationist arguments, the unbelieving scientist will reason that a Christianity that believes in such nonsense must be a religion not worthy of his interest. Mixing the gospel with creationism could raise a barrier in the way of a person's acceptance of the gospel. Modern creationism in this sense is apologetically and evangelistically ineffective. It could even be a hindrance to the gospel. "Another possible danger is that in presenting the gospel to the lost and in defending God's truth we ourselves will seem to be false. It is time for Christian people to recognize that the defense of this modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology creationism is simply not truthful. It is simply not in accord with the facts that God has given. Creationism must be abandoned by Christians before harm is done. The persistent attempts of the creationist movement to get their points of view established in educational institutions can only bring harm to the Christian cause. Can we seriously expect non-Christian educational leaders to develop a respect for Christianity if we insist on teaching the brand of science that creationism brings with it? Will not the forcing of modern creationism on the public simply lend credence to the idea already entertained by so many intellectual leaders that Christianity, at least in its modern form, is sheer anti-intellectual obscurantism? I fear that it will." Ray's statements about uniformitarianism vs. catastrophism stem, I fear, from a confusion about the meaning of the words. There are in fact at least two senses of each word, and it depends upon what meaning you use as to whether you call evolution (or creationism, for that matter!) "uniformitarianism" or "catastrophism". Much of what I will say follows Davis Young's *Christianity and the Age of the Earth*, mentioned above. Nearly all scientists subscribe to the notion of *Methodological Uniformitarianism* , namely that the laws of physics are invariant with respect to ones location in either space or time. This does not mean that things are always the same everywhere, only that the underlying physics is uniform. Thus when the universe was only a small fraction of a second old, all the forces of nature "looked" alike; there was no distinction between electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force and (presumably) gravity. The fact that they look different now is only due to the low temperature of our part of space-time. Creationists explicitly reject this idea, at least during the time that God was creating the universe. According to them, God used processes in the creation of the universe that are no longer in effect. However, they are equally explicit in stating that once God set things in motion, and the Creation was complete, He established the laws of physics that are in effect today. Thus in this sense, Creationists are methodological uniformitarians. Indeed one sees this in their attempts to explain the geological record ("Flood Geology") by appeal to physical processes that can be understood today, such as hydraulic sorting, animal mobility, and habitat. The other sense of the two words refers to the rates of geological processes. The hypothesis of *Substantive Uniformitarianism* (which actually predates evolution) claims that slow, gradual processes are sufficient to explain the entire geologic record. Uniformitarianism in this sense is dead, and has been for quite some time. As Davis writes (p. 141), "Substantive uniformitarianism has been repeatedly attacked by creationists, who seem to think that is the principle to which modern geologists (whether Christian or atheistic) subscribe. Often the inference is made that, since substantive uniformitarianism is incorrect, Flood catastrophism is correct, as if we had to choose between these two alternatives. It is of course true that substantive uniformitarianism is an incorrect principle. It is not in accord with the facts of nature, and there are many geologic phenomena that cannot be accounted for in terms of uniformity of rates... "The fact of the matter, however, is that Flood catastrophists have been spending considerable effort in beating a dead horse because it is highly questionable whether any significant number of geologists has held to anything like substantive uniformitarianism for a long time. The modern geological community just does not think in terms of substantive uniformitarianism. When a geologist goes out to look at rocks, he does not go out with a preconceived notion that present processes must always have operated at the same intensity throughout history. Nor does he go out with a preconceived notion that a great catastrophe (or several of them) cannot have happened. If geologists do not subscribe to Flood geology, it is because they are persuaded that the evidence from the rocks argues against it, not because they approach geology with a preconceived idea as to what rates of processes must have been like in the past. Geologists hardly feel that sedimentation and burial of fossils must always and everywhere have been excruciatingly slow, peaceful and nonviolent. Geologists hardly feel that just because a particular rock is not in the process of being formed today this poses a serious threat to the uniformity of nature. Furthermore, geologists do not rule out the possibility of great catastrophes. "Steinhauer noted that a few scientists have seen the weakness of substantive uniformitarianism and have given it up. This is an understatement of tremendous proportions. The geologic community gave up substantive uniformitarianism long ago. One might even question whether the geologic community as a whole ever did enthusiastically adhere to substantive uniformitarianism. The brand of uniformity of which catastrophists accuse geologists is not generally held by them. Catastrophists are attacking a straw man." -- "When evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve" Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)