tynor@gitpyr.UUCP (Steve Tynor) (10/20/84)
<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>
From Larry Bickford's Ice Flow:
> Very critical is the fact that no "prior observations"
> are possible, since no man observed first origins, life, or humankind;
> nor is it possible to "check with experience by test" in any manner when
> objective considerations are given to first origins.
>
> Three qualification have already been cited:
> 1. A fruitful theory *correlates many separate facts*, particularly the
> important *prior observations*, in a logical preferably easily grasped
> structure of thought.
Just what do you take the term 'prior observations' to mean? It appears
that you think it means an observation of the state of things before an
event that our theory is trying to explain. It seems to me that 'prior
observations' really means facts that have been accumulated prior to the
formulation of this theory.
There's a big difference. Qualification #1 is mearly saying (and rightly so)
that a new scientific theory must not only be able to explain new observations,
but also any past data collected. This is one of Thomas Kuhn's primary
requirements for the acceptance of a new paradigm of scientific theory.
It says that we cannot just pick and choose the facts we want our new theory
to explain. It must explain *all* the existing facts as well as any new
ones that have necessitated the formulation of the new theory. In this way,
it is an argument *against* the creationists who wish to ignore certain
evidence...
> 2. In the course of continued use it *suggests new relations* and
> stimulate directed research.
What new relations do creationists purport? It seems to me that all the
creationists do in the end is say, "Well, that's the way the creator created
it. It's beyond the power of us mear mortals to understand." That's really
stimulating to research!
> The history of science has shown that a good theory frequently has, in
> addition to the three attributes above, one or more of the following
> three:
> 4. When the smoke of initial battle has lifted, the more successful of
> two rival theories often turns out to be the one that is simpler in
> the sense that it involves *fewer basic assumptions or hypotheses*.
Absolutely! One of the main reasons that I dismiss creationism as science.
Creationists must assume the existance of a supernatural Creator, whereas
science deals with the reproducable natural world.
> 6. Successful theory is flexible enough to grow, and to *undergo
> modifications* where necessary.
Again, I agree with Horton and Holler, but fail to see how this supports the
creationist's case. Evolutionary theory *has* grown since its initial
acceptance. And some day (not likely, but maybe) scientists will be forced
to abandon the theory of evolution. IF they are forced to do so, they will
have to replace it with better *scientific* theory that better explains the
evidence.
But what of 'scientific' creationism? It is mearly trying to
find a way to fit scientific evidence into a preconcieved religious idea.
Flexible, yes. But only in the 'minor' details. (How old is the earth, how
did the fossils form, can the great flood explain sedementary deposits?)
Its main precept is undefeatable on scientific grounds (ie. the existance of
a supernatural creator, which is by definition outside the realm of
science.) The only way that scientific creationism has grown from its roots
in fundamentalistic dogma, is its increasingly sophisticated rhetoric.
> On the next page, Moore continues:
> "On the basis of the previous list of criteria for discerning a proper
> theory, is the so-called theory of evolution scientific? No. In no way
> are any prior observations of the first stages of the universe, of first
> life, or the first humankind possible."
>
> For these and other reasons, the proper terminology is MODELS of
> origins, whether creation or evolution.
It looks like Moore has made the same error that you have in interpretting
what Norton and Holler meant by 'prior observations.' I'll agree that the
proper term is creation Model, but evolution is a Scientific theory.
Steve Tynor
Georgia Instutute of Technology
...{allegra, ihnp4, harpo}!gatech!gitpyr!tynor