[net.origins] Falsification

dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (10/03/84)

> > Paul Dubois has asked for tests of evolution that show that
> > it is falsifiable.  This is a fair request, I wish he would
> > supply some for creationism.  Actually people have answered
> 
> One hesitates to throw out accusations of dishonesty at idividuals,
> but it begins to look like the only other answer is mental incompetance.
> I find it hard to beleive either of Mr. Dubois.  So I ask him,
> as have so many before: where is your theory, what is your science?
> Are you afraid of having your ideas attacked, or have you any
> ideas?

Well, mental incompetance might be a valid explanation, actually.
(although I'm flattered that anyone would find it implausible).
Anyway, regarding falsification tests, in a strict sense, it is probably
true that there are none.  A priori, I am unaware of any restrictions
one could place on a creator as far as the methods which might be used.
Because of this, one could logically say (I think) that there is no
NECESSARY conflict between evolution and creation.  But having said
that, what I'll be posting will focus on observational aspects consistent
with the hypothesis that natural processes were not involved in the
appearance of life on earth.  (yes, I'm aware of the loophole in that
statement, you don't need to point it out.)  If such natural processes
could be demonstrated, then what I propose will be falsified.  I'll
(sadly) leave it at that for now.
---
I'm not afraid of having my ideas attacked.  I've said it before,
go ahead and criticize them.  Clearly, one would not post articles
if one was afraid of getting scratched up.
---
My (perhaps inexcusable) delay is due to my current perusal of
anti-creationist literature.  The purpose of this is to discover
shortcomings of creationism which I am unaware of, so that (hopefully)
I won't need to bore you folks by repeating them.
-- 
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

ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (10/05/84)

> what I'll be posting will focus on observational aspects consistent
> with the hypothesis that natural processes were not involved in the
> appearance of life on earth.  

Perhaps, before you post such articles, you should post some
detailing the origins scenario you are attempting to defend.
Then, perhaps, you should present some reason why your observational
aspects lead to that scenario.

If all you can do is present observational aspects consistent
with a non-natural hypothesis, rather than inconsistent with
a natural hypothesis, then you must show why your scenario is
preferable to the currently held majority opinion.

That is, you must if you are trying to be scientific.  If you
are among those who are trying to use politics to push your religion
on the rest of us, do let us know, so we adjust our response
accordingly.

-- 
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