bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (09/16/84)
>> The statement "G*d created" clearly may be interpreted in a >> religious manner. Is it allowed as a starting point? That is, >> is it scientifically acceptable to the evolutionists on the net >> to postulate a Creator, and then make predictions using naturalistic >> processes on the basis of that postulate? Or is that, too, a >> religious statement, and therefore disallowed? The question Dubois asks is, as usual, more simplistic in the asking than in the answering. I suspect it depends upon the context in which the attribution "G*d created..." is used. If Dubois wants to say "G*d created an oscillating universe," or "G*d created the Big Bang," I suppose I would have no objection since such assertions most likely fall outside the realm of evidence and scientific inquiry. If Dubois wants to use "G*d created the Universe just like it is 10,000 years ago..." as some kind of starting point, then there are serious objections. The asser- tion flies in the face of the physical evidence and really is subject to scientific inquiry. Fortunately, Dubois himself provides a useful heuristic: >> If it is disallowed, how about, then, if I postulate, say, "it >> just came out of nothing"? Is that religious, and disallowed? No. I actually like this. The assertion that "...it just came out of nothing" must not, however, be confused with "We don't know (yet) where it came from," or "The physical evidence is as yet insufficient to state how this came to be" or any number of evidence-based state- ments. If Dubois, and the other creationists, would be willing to substitute "X just came out of nothing" for "G*d created X" in their expositions it would certainly lay bare the amount of non-science in their thinking. -- Byron C. Howes {decvax|akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (09/18/84)
> The statement "God created" clearly may be interpreted in a > religious manner. Is it allowed as a starting point? That is, > is it scientifically acceptable to the evolutionists on the net > to postulate a Creator, and then make predictions using naturalistic > processes on the basis of that postulate? Or is that, too, a > religious statement, and therefore disallowed? What are we discussing, Paul? Some while back there was an attempt (mine) to get some info on "scientific creationism"--specifically as opposed to "religious creationism". Clearly, "God created" isn't a valid starting point for that sub-discussion; you can't get much closer to "religious creationism" than starting with "God created". Similarly, if you ask if it's "scientifically acceptable" to say that, the answer is "no"--unless you have a Creator which is limited to naturalistic processes, in which case I'll bow out here because I don't understand your concept. > If it is disallowed, how about, then, if I postulate, say, "it > just came out of nothing"? Is that religious, and disallowed? That's not (inherently/obviously) religious, but it's not a good postulate. "It just came" presupposes a lot. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Never offend with style when you can offend with substance.
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (09/19/84)
Warning! This posting contains no sarcasm. Try not to drop over dead. --- I will address here something which I have suspected from my first contact with this newsgroup, and which bears heavily on my initial posting: the offer to discuss scientific creationism. This is what I understand to be the concensus of the evolutionary side of the argument: In order to present what the pro-evolution side would consider a legitimate position, these two requirements must be met: (i) A creationism model must be scientific and not religious. (to make this point belabors what Dick Dunn and others have been saying all along. I include it here for completeness.) (ii) A creation model must, obviously, include a creator. But a creator is a religious (or at the least, supernatural) concept and therefore cannot be part of a scientific model. These two requirements taken together rule out, by definition, any possibility of a scientific creation model, right? Ken Perlow has stated as much: > All creationist propositions need one or > more gods to work the machinery. But if the explanation is not > naturalistic, it's not science. By definition! To which Larry Bickford replied: > Sez who? Webster's has "systematized knowledge derived from observation, > study, and experimentation..." Another exchange went like this: > [Michael Ward] > "Science simply refuses to depend on divine intervention as an > explanation of anything." > [Larry Bickford] > Such a science is bigoted instead of neutral. And until science gets > *all* the answers, it has no place making such an absolute statement. --- Well. I shall not dispute point (i), above. Clearly a religious model will not convince the non-religious, or those who place a higher value upon the truth to be derived from scientific inquiry than that which might be derived on a religious basis. However, I do feel that point (ii) is unreasonable, for the reason given in the second quote from Larry. How can science, which must be willing to consider the best explanation of natural phenomena rule out, a priori, the possibility that natural phenomena has a supernatural origin? Just as I must be willing to consider models which are consistent with the assumption that no creator was present, so must non-creationists be willing to concede the possibility that models not based on that assumption may be used to derive predictions regarding natural phenomena, based on natural laws. I have not yet tried to formulate any description of a model based on creation in this newsgroup. Several people have noticed that, and have presented criticism based on that observation. I don't wish to complain about the criticism (it would be somewhat inconsistent, since I have offered a certain amount of it to the evolutionary position). The reason I haven't given a model is that I do not (yet) see that it is worth it. If any such attempt will be ruled invalid by definition, what's the point? I'm still willing to give one, and to demarcate what would be considered outside of the realm of scientific inquiry (i.e., what the model could not explain). My question is, shall I try? If I have misrepresented the evolutionary position, then of course clarifications are solicited. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois "Make me to go in the path of thy commandments; for therein do I delight." Psalm 119:35
rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) (09/20/84)
> (i) A creationism model must be scientific and not religious. > (to make this point belabors what Dick Dunn and others have > been saying all along. I include it here for completeness.) > (ii) A creation model must, obviously, include a creator. But a > creator is a religious (or at the least, supernatural) > concept and therefore cannot be part of a scientific model. I am willing to drop (ii) but not (i). To require "scientific creationism" to be scientific seems fair to me. It is of course unreasonable to require that a creationist model not include a creator. > Well. I shall not dispute point (i), above. Clearly a religious > model will not convince the non-religious, or those who place a > higher value upon the truth to be derived from scientific inquiry > than that which might be derived on a religious basis. > However, I do feel that point (ii) is unreasonable, for the > reason given in the second quote from Larry. How can science, > which must be willing to consider the best explanation of natural > phenomena rule out, a priori, the possibility that natural > phenomena has a supernatural origin? Just as I must be willing > to consider models which are consistent with the assumption that > no creator was present, so must non-creationists be willing > to concede the possibility that models not based on that assumption > may be used to derive predictions regarding natural phenomena, > based on natural laws. I agree with you. (for a change) > I have not yet tried to formulate any description of a model based > on creation in this newsgroup. Several people have noticed that, > and have presented criticism based on that observation. Justified criticism in my view. The fact that evolution has a model (several actually) makes it easier to attack. The fact that creationism has no obvious model (Genesis, being a religious document, dosn't count) means that win or lose evolution can do no better than breaking even. > The reason I haven't given a model is that I do not > (yet) see that it is worth it. If any such attempt will be > ruled invalid by definition, what's the point? You are wasting your "breath" on those who rule out your position a priori anyway. It may not be worth it in terms of improving you arguing position but it would result in a fairer argument. > I'm still willing > to give one, and to demarcate what would be considered outside > of the realm of scientific inquiry (i.e., what the model could > not explain). My question is, shall I try? Please do. I have been waiting in vain for a concrete model for some time. Of course I will not hesitate to tear your model to ribbons if it has any weaknesses. Destroying models is one of the main jobs of a scientist. GET ON WITH IT! Ralph Hartley rlh@cvl siesmo!rlgvax!cvl!rlh
brian@digi-g.UUCP (Brian Westley) (09/20/84)
RULES?! In a KNIFE FIGHT?!
("Who ARE those guys?" :-)dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (09/20/84)
> > I have not yet tried to formulate any description of a model based > > on creation in this newsgroup. Several people have noticed that, > > and have presented criticism based on that observation. > > Justified criticism in my view. Well, yes. That's why I don't object to the criticism. > The fact that evolution has a model > (several actually) makes it easier to attack. The fact that creationism > has no obvious model (Genesis, being a religious document, dosn't > count) means that win or lose evolution can do no better than breaking > even. > > > The reason I haven't given a model is that I do not > > (yet) see that it is worth it. If any such attempt will be > > ruled invalid by definition, what's the point? > > You are wasting your "breath" on those who rule out your position a > priori anyway. It may not be worth it in terms of improving your arguing > position but it would result in a fairer argument. Ok, fine. > > I'm still willing > > to give one, and to demarcate what would be considered outside > > of the realm of scientific inquiry (i.e., what the model could > > not explain). My question is, shall I try? > > Please do. I have been waiting in vain for a concrete model for some > time. Of course I will not hesitate to tear your model to ribbons if it > has any weaknesses. Destroying models is one of the main jobs of a > scientist. Fair enough. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois "Make me to go in the path of thy commandments; for therein do I delight." Psalm 119:35
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (09/20/84)
> [Michael Ward] > I notice that you very cleverly do not bother trying to attack the rest > of my posting: that two people cannot set the ground rules for a net > discussion. Does that mean that you agree with me on this point? Hardly clever. But I notice that while you're disputing who can set rules and such, that you haven't said what rules you want? Or have I just (stupidly) missed them? > You want to postulate that some Creator started the whole thing. I > have two questions: > 1) Do you have any evidence to support such a hypothosis? > > 2) Are we talking about a Creator doing His Thing 10,000 years ago, or > 15 Billion years ago? Again, do you have evidence? This is silly. One doesn't "prove" one's basic assumption. One assumes something (anything!), for the sake of argument, and then tries to determine what one might expect to find on the basis of that assumption. Then one examines the evidence and determines whether or not what one does in fact find is consistent with the basic assumption. If not, you evaluate your assumptions. Alternatively, one looks at the evidence first, then formulates an hypothesis consistent with that evidence (the hypothesis will, however, be somewhat a function of (perhaps implicit) basis assumptions), then uses the hypothesis to make predictions, tests the predictions and based on the outcome, reevaluates the hypothesis. --- A semantic point: If anyone is looking for a model "of creation", I (like many of you) don't see how that can be done. What CAN be done is make predictions about what ought to be found IF physical reality has a creative origin (in particular, a creative origin of a non-evolutionary nature). -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois "Make me to go in the path of thy commandments; for therein do I delight." Psalm 119:35
rch@brunix.UUCP (Rich Yampell) (09/23/84)
The idea that science cannot absolutely rule out a creator is a valid one. But remember, rule I still applies. If I concede for the purpose of discussion the existance of a creator, well ok fine. But then what? It might be a not-entirely-unreasonable hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint to say that life was generated by a creator, but where do you go from there? What can you say about such a creator? How was it done? What useful information do we gain? What predictions can we make to test such a hypothesis? What I'm *really* driving at is that just because one hypothesizes a creator does not in any way allow one to make the incredibly huge leap of then saying that said creator *is* the god of the judeo-christian tradition. And without being able to make that leap, creationism, at least as far as I can see, cannot say very much. But I'm interested in what the Creationists have to say. Fine, I grant the existance (for the time being) of *some kind* of creator. Now what? What is step 2 in your theory? Rich Yampell
bmt@we53.UUCP ( B. M. Thomas ) (10/03/84)
>.........................What I'm *really* driving at is that just because >one hypothesizes a creator does not in any way allow one to make the >incredibly huge leap of then saying that said creator *is* the god of >the judeo-christian tradition. And without being able to make that >leap, creationism, at least as far as I can see, cannot say very much. > >But I'm interested in what the Creationists have to say. Fine, I grant >the existance (for the time being) of *some kind* of creator. Now what? Sorry I don't have the rules available to me, but the question seems one of science being able or not being able to rule out a [Cc]reator, and what that should lead us to. One point of clarification that I feel is needed is that we seem to be looking down the wrong end of the telescope here. What I mean, if my metaphor applies, is that the evolotionary theory arose out of an unqualified rejection of the idea of a creator, specifically *the* Creator of the Judeo-Christian teachings. The rejection stemmed from the logical conclusion that if He existed, then He had something to say about how I live My life, something that Darwin et al. had a personal problem with, as do the evolutionists of today.
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (10/05/84)
In article <we53.245> bmt@we53.UUCP ( B. M. Thomas ) writes: > >One point of clarification that I feel is needed is that we seem >to be looking down the wrong end of the telescope here. What I mean, if >my metaphor applies, is that the evolotionary theory arose out of an >unqualified rejection of the idea of a creator, specifically *the* >Creator of the Judeo-Christian teachings. The rejection stemmed from >the logical conclusion that if He existed, then He had something to say >about how I live My life, something that Darwin et al. had a personal >problem with, as do the evolutionists of today. Sorry, I can't buy that. Evolutionary theory did not arise from the unqualified rejection of a creator though it does bring under scrutiny the history of the world as described in Genesis. Let me quote from Darwin (something that has not been done, to my knowledge, in the history of this discussion on the net.) "Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. ... There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by that Creator into a few forms or into one; and that...from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." Darwin, Origin of the Species Clearly, these are not the words of one who has rejected the notion of a creator. Similarly, most people I know who subscribe to evolutionary theory are not atheistic in any sense. The idea that they are can only be attributed to fundamentalist creationist propaganda. Can we now dispense with this notion? -- Byron C. Howes {decvax|akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (10/06/84)
> What I mean, if > my metaphor applies, is that the evolotionary theory arose out of an > unqualified rejection of the idea of a creator, specifically *the* > Creator of the Judeo-Christian teachings. The rejection stemmed from > the logical conclusion that if He existed, then He had something to say > about how I live My life, something that Darwin et al. had a personal > problem with, as do the evolutionists of today. I don't suppose you can back up this incredible statement with any documentary evidence. But then why should you? Creationists don't seem to have to follow rules of logic or anything else. That statement is no crazier than any of the rest of the unsubstatiated garbage we've been seeing in this newsgroup. -- 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