miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP (09/25/84)
Time for another weekly article by your friendly neighborhood creationist! First, to answer Steve Wall's question, I believe the person you want is Sir Fred Hoyle, who in his book "Evolution from Space" calculates the probability of life evolving on earth at 1 out of 10^40,000. He's written about this in other places too, e.g., the 11/12/81 edition of "Nature" states that "The chance that higher life forms have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein". Amazingly, he still believes in evolution; though he feels it came to earth from another planet (which got the 747 I guess). Bill Price writes: >It seems that this difference of viewpoint goes a long way toward seeing why >the Creationist will respond with anger, rather than understanding, when he is >confronted with reality. Gee, and just last week I pointed out that on the net it was *evolutionists* who were calling creationists: officers of the inquisition, a social holocaust, one of the greatest threats that civilization faces, metaphysical totalitarian- ism, Big Brother, Nazis, etc. It seems to me that it is the evolutionists responding with anger at reality, not the other way around. Patrick Wyant has a very long reply to Paul DuBois concerning thermodyna- mics and Dr. Prigogine. However, I don't think Patrick took Prigogine's warn- ings to heart, i.e., where he wrote "But let us have no illusions. If today we look into the situation where the analogy with the life sciences is the most striking - even if we discovered within biological systems some operation distant from the state of equilibrium - our research would still leave us quite unable to grasp the extreme complexity of the simplest of organisms." Any model works if you make enough assumptions. Prigogine errs when he assumes several highly improbable things, for example: 1 A steady net production of enormous quantities of nucleotides and amino acids on the hypothetical primative earth by the simple interaction of raw energy and simple gases. 2 A steady net production of enormous quantities of energy-rich organic mole- cules to supply the required energy. 3 The combination, in enormous quantities, of the nucleotides to form polymers. 4 The selective formation of homopolymers (such as poly-A and poly-T) rather than the formation of mixed polymers of random sequences. 5 The establishment of an autocatalytic cycle. 6 Errors in the formation of the polymers producing a new polymer which directs the synthesis of a primitive protein enzyme. 7 The primitive protein enzyme catalyzes the formation of both itself and the nucleotide polymer (DNA). 8 The above molecules somehow manage to spontaneously separate themselves from the rest of the world and concentrate into condensed systems coordinated in time and space. (ref: Dr. Gish) Note that all of the improbable assumptions must hold; if even *one* is wrong the system fails. In view of things like this, I would be wary of taking Dr. Prigogine's own warnings too lightly. Dick Dunn accuses creationists of circular reasoning in their definition of kinds. He, of course, assists himself in this accusation by "paraphrasing" creationists. All the while, he still hasn't given a "succinct, testable defi- tion" of species either. Actually, what we have here is a prediction by crea- tionists, that kinds most likely share a unique common genetic characteristic, one that further genetic research into understanding the DNA program should reveal. Ray Mooney still has this silly notion that "creationists...are almost always in areas not directly related to the evolution-creationism debate". I suggested he check out the credentials of the staff members at ICR. He obviously did not do that, calling Dr. Gish an engineer. Sorry Ray, Dr. Gish earned a BS in chemistry from UCLA, and a Ph.D. in biochemistry from UC Berk- eley. He spent 18 years in biochemical research at Cornell Univ Medical College, the Virus Laboratory of the UC Berkeley, and with the Upjohn Company. During that time he worked with two Nobel Prize winners and has authored about 40 technical scientific papers. The most visible engineer in the field is no doubt Dr. Henry Morris. But even he has the proper background. His Ph.D. (from the Univ Minnesota) was a major in hydraulics, with a double minor in geology and mathematics. Who else is better qualified to study Flood geology? (His resume is quite long and impressive, including 13 years as Chairman of the Civil Engineering Dept at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute). There are also geologists (like Dr. Austin) and biologists (like Dr. Parker) on staff. And although he's not actually on the ICR staff (only affiliated) how could I forget Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith, who has earned not one, not two, but *three* doctoral degrees (organic chemistry, pharmacology, and chemotherapy). Not only was he a professor here at the Medical Center at our own UI, but he has given several scientific creationism lectures here on campus & one debate (against two UI evolutionary professors at once). Did you go, or were you at home trying to convince yourself how dumb creationists are and how little science they know? You might want to check out his book "The Creation of Life" in our biology dept library, where he goes into the chemical impossibilities of evolu- tionary abiogenesis. Now, although it's not necessarily true that a high percentage of creationists are engineers, it is true that a high percentage of engineers are creationists. No doubt engineers have a better grasp of the concept "a watch requires a watchmaker". Further, there is less vested in- terest, indoctrination, and opposition in the subject if you are an engineer. Finally, several people jumped on my comments last time about the basis for morality. I'd rather not get into that too much here. It is a subject for net.religion or .philosophy (which I don't read). I'm following up on that via personal mail with several people. Suffice it to say I was answering a charge by Phil Polli that creationists are racists, and in that context, the remarks were appropriate. A. Ray Miller Univ Illinois
rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) (09/28/84)
> Fred Hoyle, who in his book "Evolution from Space" calculates the probability > of life evolving on earth at 1 out of 10^40,000. What is this? The same bogus "probability" argument has been around the net for some time. The only accurate way to find the probability of SOME form of PRIMITIVE life forming from nonliving matter is by experiment (unfortunately the experiment take 10^9 years to run). Please stop arguing by proxy! Give the reasoning itself. If it is fallacious, no one should be convinced because some famous person believes in it. This goes double in Hoyle's case; for the last 10 years his theories have tended to be complicated, bizarre, interesting, and wrong. > >It seems that this difference of viewpoint goes a long way toward seeing why > >the Creationist will respond with anger, rather than understanding, when he > >is confronted with reality. > Gee, and just last week I pointed out that on the net it was > *evolutionists* who were calling creationists: officers of the > inquisition, a social holocaust, one of the greatest threats that > civilization faces, metaphysical totalitarianism, Big Brother, Nazis, > etc. Of course we all deplore the name calling on the net, don't we? > It seems to me that it is the evolutionists responding with anger > at reality, not the other way around. I scream you scream we all scream. What does it prove? > >even if we discovered within biological systems some operation > >distant from the state of equilibrium our research would still > >leave us quite unable to grasp the extreme complexity of the simplest > >of organisms. EVEN IF ! ???? Try not eating for a while if you think we are at equilibrium! You mean the simplest EXISTING organisms. Thats not what we are talking about. Yes I know you were quoting someone else, but you shouldn't use an argument that you arn't prepaired to defend. > 1 A steady net production of enormous quantities of nucleotides and amino > acids on the hypothetical primative earth by the simple interaction of > raw energy and simple gases. > 2 A steady net production of enormous quantities of energy-rich organic mole- > cules to supply the required energy. > 3 The combination, in enormous quantities, of the nucleotides to form > polymers. These may have been assumptions once, but now they are experimental results. If you simulate the conditions of the early atmosphere, these three things DO HAPPEN. You don't even have to wait 10^7 years! Assumptions about its composition are unimportant as long as it contains no free oxygen. Free oxygen is not found on any of the other (i.e. dead) planets. > 4 The selective formation of homopolymers (such as poly-A and poly-T) rather > than the formation of mixed polymers of random sequences. Life can't happen without this? You just threw this in to make it seem hard. > 5 The establishment of an autocatalytic cycle. This is by definition necessary for the the (natural) origin of life because it is the same thing. > 6 Errors in the formation of the polymers producing a new polymer which > directs the synthesis of a primitive protein enzyme. Errors? If the polymers are random, what is an error? Remember it only has to a VERY primitive enzyme, and it dosn't have to be produced efficiently. Remember the first life would have no competition. > 7 The primitive protein enzyme catalyzes the formation of both itself and the > nucleotide polymer (DNA). RNA enzymes are possible. Such an enzyme would only have to produce itself. (from a pre-existing template (itself)) > 8 The above molecules somehow manage to spontaneously separate themselves > from the rest of the world and concentrate into condensed systms > coordinated in time and space. You don't believe this is possible? Do you believe in crystals? Remember that "Somehow" is a very broad word. > (ref: Dr. Gish) Note that all of the improbable assumptions must hold; if > even *one* is wrong the system fails. No. Only 5 and 8 are really necessary. The rest can be replaced by other mechanisms. > Actually, what we have here is a prediction by creationists, that > kinds most likely share a unique common genetic characteristic, one > that further genetic research into understanding the DNA program should > reveal. Very good. You made a prediction! Too bad all the DNA research done so far points in the other direction. From the characteristics of DNA it seems that all life on earth is of the same "kind". You can even trace the family tree with more accuracy than from morphology or the much maligned "fossil record". Predictions are good, but you have to predict the results of past experiments too. If I were in your shoes I would use the scientific method and modify my theory to fit the experimental data. Ralph Hartley rlh@cvl siesmo!rlgvax!cvl!rlh
rmooney@uicsl.UUCP (09/30/84)
A. Ray Miller writes: > Ray Mooney still has this silly notion that "creationists...are almost >always in areas not directly related to the evolution-creationism debate". I >suggested he check out the credentials of the staff members at ICR. He >obviously did not do that, calling Dr. Gish an engineer. Sorry Ray, Dr. Gish >earned a BS in chemistry from UCLA, and a Ph.D. in biochemistry from UC Berk- >eley. >....... The most visible engineer in the field is no doubt Dr. Henry Morris. Yes, I actually meant Morris but made a mistake by confusing him with Gish. Of course, as we have seen, Mr. Miller is not alien to making mistakes himself, as he recently wrongly attributed a remark on the net. Mr. Miller then continues to list credentials for all sorts of creationists. Since the VAX I am working on probably does not have the memory to hold all the credentials of evolutionsts, I will avoid typing them in, and simply state that, for the most part, such things are irrelevant, and I should have anticipated Mr. Miller's response and never brought up the subject. >Now, although it's not necessarily true that a high >percentage of creationists are engineers, it is true that a high percentage of >engineers are creationists. No doubt engineers have a better grasp of the >concept "a watch requires a watchmaker". First of all, what is "a high percentage of engineers." Certainly none of the many engineers that I have ever known have been "scientific creationists." But again, such unsupported claims are irrelevant. But, speaking of the infamous "watchmaker," arguement I have a question. The arguement seems to be, using Predicate Calculus for clarity: (for-all (x) (COMPLICATED-ENTITY(x) --> (there-exists (y) (CREATED(y,x)) That is, if x is a complicated entity, then some creator must have created it. It seems that one can also assume that the creator of a complicated entity is also a complicated entity, or in formal notation: (for-all(x,y)(COMPLICATED-ENTITY(x) & CREATED(y,x) --> COMPLICATED-ENTITY(y))) Therefore, a watch, a complicated entity, requires a maker (x=watch1,y=human1) and a human also requires a maker(x=human1,y=god1). Of course the deduction as formulated does not stop there, since by assumption 2, god1 is a complicated entity and therefore requires a creator also (x=god1,y=metagod1). Then the question is, who created God? , and who created the Meta-God, ... ad-infinitum. Is there an inifinte hierarchy of Gods as supposed in R. Heinlein's new book "JOB: A Comedy of Justice," or what is wrong with the assumptions as stated above? Creationists seem to think that since scientists need to postulate at least the initial existence of matter, then they are just as free to postulate the initial existence of God. However, there is a major difference. Matter, presumably, is a simpler substance than God. Isn't ontological parsimony a desirable goal? Scientific theories have always been subject to Occams Razor. However, with the watchmaker arguement above, we are complicating the entity that needs explaining at each step. Of course with the case of the watch being created by man, we know from direct observation that the more complicated entity exists and is the agent that builds watches. In the case of introducing a creator for man, on the other hand, there is no direct observation of such a creation, as most creationists will tell you. If by some means one could be convinced that life on Earth was not a product of evolution (and I am by *no* means granting this assumption), then the next logical step following ontological parsimony in the spirit of scientific enquiry would be to try to find a *natural* explanation for the importation of life, as Prof. Hoyle does. By the way, I am quite sure that Hoyle does not claim life originated on another planet, but that crucial compounds developed on comets where the environment is somehow more suitable. Could it be that A. Ray has not actually read his book even though he continually accuses others of not reading creationists literature? (For the record I have not read the book myself and could be mistaken also) Even if, as Mr. Miller believes, one could show that no environment could support the unguided formation of crucial organic compounds found in life on Earth, then one could possibly postulate that such compounds were originally engineered by life on a neutron star. This would even work if the universe could be shown to be even a few thousand years old since, as Dr. Robert Forward explains in his book "Dragons Egg," such life would operate orders of magnitude faster than molecular based life. I claim that anyone who believes that such ideas are more absurd than bringing God into science is simply biased by social norms, since they all remain in the natural world of matter and avoid the totally unwarranted ontological promiscuity of introducing a "spiritual" realm. So, does A. Ray Miller believe in creationism for scientific or religious reasons? If it is for scientific reasons, why does he reject the more parsimonious solutions above? Ray Mooney ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!rmooney University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (10/01/84)
Ray Miller says:
Ray Mooney still has this silly notion that "creationists...are almost
always in areas not directly related to the evolution-creationism
debate". I suggested he check out the credentials of the staff members
at ICR. He obviously did not do that, calling Dr. Gish an engineer.
Sorry Ray, Dr. Gish earned a BS in chemistry from UCLA, and a Ph.D. in
biochemistry from UC Berkeley. He spent 18 years in biochemical
research at Cornell Univ Medical College, the Virus Laboratory of the
UC Berkeley, and with the Upjohn Company. During that time he worked
with two Nobel Prize winners and has authored about 40 technical
scientific papers.
How impressed Ray is with academic degrees! Unfortunately, possession of a
Ph.D. does not necessarily mean that what one says can be believed, even when
speaking on your own or a related field. The bottom line, degree or not, is
the reputation you establish for yourself. The following excerpt is from a
letter to the editor which appeared in the Spring/Summer 1984 issue of *Origins
Research*, a periodical with a definite Creationist bias. I think that it
shows why one must approach anything Dr. Gish says with a very large grain of
salt:
In recent years a substantial body of literature critical of
creationism has appeared, and it contains numerous well-documented
examples of Gish's frauds (see, for example, Miller 1983, 249-262;
Weber 1981, 4; Cracraft 1983, 180-181; Godfrey 1983, 202). We feel
that making additional charges of dishonesty against Gish is gilding a
lily, and if SOR [Students for Origins Research] wants charges to
investigate, there are plenty in this literature. That said, we
proceed to gild the lily.
*Chimps, Bullfrogs and Chickens*
In the spring of 1982, the Public Broadcasting System televised an
hour-long program on the creation/evolution controversy. In discussing
the evolution of humans and chimpanzees from a common ancestor,
biochemist Russell Doolittle pointed out that many human and chimpanzee
proteins are identical, and others are extremely similar. In rebuttal
Duane Gish offered the following:
Gish: "If we look at certain proteins, yes, man then -- it can be
assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other
things. But on the other hand, if you look at other certain proteins,
you'll find that man is more closely related to a bullfrog than he is
to a chimpanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll
find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a
chimpanzee."
What does protein biochemistry really show? In response to a letter,
Doolittle provided extensive documentation for his statements about
human and chimpanzee proteins. Gish was likewise asked in a series of
letters what proteins suggest that man is more closely related to
bullfrogs (chickens) than to chimpanzees; what are the respective amino
acid sequences for the bullfrog (chicken), chimpanzee, and human
proteins; who sequenced them and where were the sequences published?
Gish responded with evasion, obfuscation and (these failing) silence.
A year later, at the 1983 National Creation Conference, Gish was
directly challenged to specify the chicken and bullfrog proteins he
cited on the PBS program. Gish went into a dazzling tapdance -- he
talked about Sir Gavin de Beer, serum albumins, and other irrelevancies
at great length. When the questioner, undistracted by the fancy
footwork, insisted on a straight answer, Gish promised to send
references documenting his claims. He has not done so. He will not do
so. It seems clear that Duane Gish lied on national television, and
that he now compounds and perpetuates his original lie by promising to
produce something every competent biochemist knows has not been found
to exist.
...
/s/
John W. Patterson
Robert Schadewald
*Bibliography*
Cracraft, Joel. 1983. In *Scientists Confront Creationism*,
Norton, New York
Godfrey, Laurie R. 1983. *ibid*
Miller, Kenneth, 1983. In *Evolution versus Creationism: The
Public Education Controversy*, Oryx Press, Phoenix AZ
Weber, Christopher Gregory, 1981. *Creation/Evolution*, no. 3.
There was a response to the letter by creationist Jerry Bergman; however, he
did not address himself at all to the above issue, so I have not attempted to
quote from it.
Ray Miller continues:
The most visible engineer in the field is no doubt Dr. Henry Morris.
But even he has the proper background. His Ph.D. (from the Univ
Minnesota) was a major in hydraulics, with a double minor in geology
and mathematics. Who else is better qualified to study Flood geology?
(His resume is quite long and impressive, including 13 years as
Chairman of the Civil Engineering Dept at the Virginia Polytechnic
Institute).
I would urge anyone who is impressed with Dr. Morris' degrees to read up on his
preposterous ideas about "Flood Geology". Any one of his books will do. His
attempts to bring a literal reading of Genesis into agreement with the
geological record show a flagrant disregard for the facts that can only be
described as amazing. One would think that the man was ignorant of the laws of
physics; the fact that he is not, and has the academic credentials he has, can
only be described as shameful.
--
"Biblical signoffs are for the smug."
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)mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/01/84)
> [Ray Miller] ... Any > model works if you make enough assumptions. Prigogine errs when he assumes > several highly improbable things, for example: > 1 A steady net production of enormous quantities of nucleotides + amino acids > on the hypothetical primative earth by the simple interaction of raw energy > and simple gases. > ... > 8 The above molecules somehow manage to spontaneously separate themselves from > the rest of the world and concentrate into condensed systems coordinated in > time and space. > (ref: Dr. Gish) Note that all of the improbable assumptions must hold; if even > *one* is wrong the system fails. In view of things like this, I would be wary > of taking Dr. Prigogine's own warnings too lightly. Ray has been generous enough to provide us with a few examples of fallacies of argument, so it would be rude of me to not properly document them. First, he assumes what he intends to prove (with the "Prigogine errs", and "improbable assumptions"), and then never provides evidence of error or improbability. Second, he raises Dr. Gish's assumptions, a prime example of putting words into someone else's mouth. Prigogine's theories may not require all those assumptions, nor may they be required in any particular order, nor may they be as improbable as they sound or is implied. For example, assumption 8 could be used to describe things as simple and commonplace as precipitation, and may have occurred before polymerization. In constructing straw horse assumptions, we would expect Gish to be as uncharitable as possible, and these are good examples. Third, Third, in the same paragraph he claims both that 1) engineers can be impartial, disinterested, and unindoctrinated, and thus better able to judge the merits of both arguments, and 2) who can be better suited to study flood geology than Morris, with his PhD in hydraulics and minor in geology? Make up your mind: you can't have it both ways. So much for fallacies of form of some of Ray's arguments. Now on to the (dubious) substance of the arguments. Mostly, appeal to authority has no place in scientific debate, on either side. Nor does appeal to popular opinion, let alone appeal to the opinions of some sub-group. The argument that engineers [because they have a better grasp of the watchmaker concept] would be better able to judge correctly between creationism and evolution is ludicrous. You might just as well argue that the engineers have a more difficult time imagining anything BUT the watchmaker idea, because of the nature of their training. Appeal to authority is at best a heuristic that fails often, because of vested interests, conflicting beliefs, and human nature in general. I for one would prefer to see more debate on the substance of creationism, rather than their organizations and people. Social implications of creationism or evolution (such as accusations of racism) are side issues that distract from the argument about which is correct. It's much easier to see creationism for what it is without a cloud of rhetoric to hide it.
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (10/02/84)
From Ray Miller: > Dick Dunn accuses creationists of circular reasoning in their definition > of kinds. He, of course, assists himself in this accusation by "paraphrasing" > creationists. All the while, he still hasn't given a "succinct, testable defi- > tion" of species either. Actually, what we have here is a prediction by crea- > tionists, that kinds most likely share a unique common genetic characteristic, > one that further genetic research into understanding the DNA program should > reveal. Yes, I paraphrased. I said I was doing so. If you've got a complaint about the way I paraphrased, state it. Otherwise, you're just pissing in the wind. Nobody asked me to give a succinct, testable definition of species, so I didn't. How can creationists "predict" the definition of a term (kind)? The "unique common genetic characteristic" idea leads to a paradox: Suppose that animals A and B have such a unique characteristic x in common. Suppose similarly that animals B and C have a different unique characteristic y in common. Suppose that A does not have characteristic y and C does not have x. Which of A, B, and C are of one kind? Does the definition of "kind" somehow exclude this possibility? -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Relax...don't worry...have a homebrew.
hammond@mouton.UUCP (10/04/84)
I read yesterday an article which discussed an idea put forth by some scientist that birds and mammals are more closely related than birds and reptiles. Anyway, one of the comments was that some research about protein comparisons had indicated the closest relative to man for the particular protein was a chicken. However, I went back today and was unable to find the magazine again. I was merely browsing among the periodical shelves and have no idea where to find the magazine. I do remember that the reason I picked it up was an article by Stephen Hawkings ( spelling? , The british physicist confined to a wheelchair) about space and time and singularities and the origin of the univerise. Also, the magazine struck me as using "British" (as opposed to American) english. Anyway, prior reports of the chicken-human protein relationships may have been what Gish was refering to. I didn't see any mention of bullfrogs, but then the article was on birds and mammals, not reptiles. Rich Hammond
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (10/06/84)
> Creationists seem to think that since scientists need to postulate at least > the initial existence of matter, then they are just as free to postulate the > initial existence of God. But scientists have no need to postulate the initial existence of matter. They only need to postulate the existence of matter at a certain point in time, and can very easily state that events before that time, being unobservable, are beyond the realm of science. (and quite possibly in the realm of religion) What that point in time is, of course, depends on the current state of mankind's ability to observe. -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307
lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (10/08/84)
> > ??? > > Creationists seem to think that since scientists need to postulate at least > > the initial existence of matter, then they are just as free to postulate the > > initial existence of God. > Mike Ward: > But scientists have no need to postulate the initial existence > of matter. They only need to postulate the existence of matter > at a certain point in time, and can very easily state that events > before that time, being unobservable, are beyond the realm of > science. (and quite possibly in the realm of religion) > What that point in time is, of course, depends on the current > state of mankind's ability to observe. So evolutionists can have things "beyond the realm of science" but creationists can't? That's hypocritical cheating! -- 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.
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (10/09/84)
> By the way, I am quite sure that Hoyle > does not claim life originated on another planet, but that crucial compounds > developed on comets where the environment is somehow more suitable. > Could it be that A. Ray has not actually read his book even though he > continually accuses others of not reading creationists literature? > (For the record I have not read the book myself and could be mistaken also) The 1982 edition of *Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics* contains an article by Hoyle that discusses his main ideas. So one doesn't have to read the book. He says that interstellar dust grains have light absorption curves similar to those of bacteria, and appears to believe that life got started in space. He uses his 10e-40000 probability figure evidence in favor of his now discredited Steady State theory, since in an infinitely old universe there is time enough for any event of nonzero probability, no matter how small, to occur. He doesn't give many details on his 10e-40000 odds, but he gives enough to determine that it is as invalid as the similar calculations that have been bandied about on the net. Basically it comes about from assuming that a probability of 10e-20 for getting 20 amino acids in sequence has to be done independently for 2000 different proteins. Everyone reading this newsgroup should know by now why this won't wash. -- "Biblical signoffs are for the smug." 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)
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (10/09/84)
> > So evolutionists can have things "beyond the realm of science" but > creationists can't? That's hypocritical cheating! Are we speaking the same language? (No...of course not. How foolish of me.) Both evolutionists and creationists are allowed to have things beyond the realm of science. The only thing that's not allowed is for anyone to have scientific theories that lie beyond the realm of science. Now, please pay attention: it's not me that disallows this, but the language. The English language. If it's beyond the realm of science, then it's not within the realm of science. Now, what on Earth does this have to do with evolution? The disciplines of evolution and cosmology are as distinct as any in science. Cosmology is the one that explores the edges of the realm of science. Evolution concerns itself with things of the Earth. The Earth is safely within the realm of science. I keep saying it: Creationism is nothing less than an attack on science itself. -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (10/10/84)
In article <qubix.1407> lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) writes: >> Mike Ward: >> But scientists have no need to postulate the initial existence >> of matter. They only need to postulate the existence of matter >> at a certain point in time, and can very easily state that events >> before that time, being unobservable, are beyond the realm of >> science. (and quite possibly in the realm of religion) > >> What that point in time is, of course, depends on the current >> state of mankind's ability to observe. > >So evolutionists can have things "beyond the realm of science" but >creationists can't? That's hypocritical cheating! Nobody ever said creationists couldn't have things 'beyond the realm of science,' only that such things cannot be critical to any scientific theory. Evolutionary theory doesn't have to deal with the genesis of matter because the scope of evolutionaty is only (!) the development of life forms. Creationists explicitly include the unobservable as the creator of all life forms. Having done so, they have expressly brought it within their theoretical scope and thus should not be shocked when they are asked to account for it. -- Byron C. Howes {decvax|akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
rmooney@uicsl.UUCP (10/11/84)
>> > My original statement: >> > Creationists seem to think that since scientists need to postulate at least >> > the initial existence of matter, then they are just as free to postulate the >> > initial existence of God. >> Mike Ward: >> But scientists have no need to postulate the initial existence >> of matter. They only need to postulate the existence of matter >> at a certain point in time, and can very easily state that events >> before that time, being unobservable, are beyond the realm of >> science. (and quite possibly in the realm of religion) >> What that point in time is, of course, depends on the current >> state of mankind's ability to observe. >Larry Bickford: >So evolutionists can have things "beyond the realm of science" but >creationists can't? That's hypocritical cheating! Obviously, any system must be based eventually on certain assumptions. Every logical system requires a set of axioms. I see little practlcal difference between supposing matter has always existed and saying it was created at one time and we are eternally ignorant of anything before that. As I initially stated, the important thing is to "minimize the complexity" of any assumptions. Creationists violate this by immediately resorting to another unobservable realm to explain origins instead of first exhausting all possible natural (and therefor simpler) explanations. Even if one considers the supposition of the existence of matter and the supposition of an initial cause in a chain of cause and effect part of "evolution" (a term which creationists interpret as any natural explanation for the origins of anything), it is not at all hypocritical to deride creationism since their suppositions involve a more complicated ontology. Ray Mooney ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!rmooney University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
daver@hp-pcd.UUCP (daver) (10/19/84)
>.................... Now, although it's not necessarily true that a high >percentage of creationists are engineers, it is true that a high percentage of >engineers are creationists. ............................................. Could you indicate your source for this statement? Dave Rabinowitz hplabs!hp-pcd!daver