mark@uf-csg.UUCP (mark fishman [fac]) (09/19/84)
The fundamental problem with "scientific creationism" is that it's an oxymoron.
The fundamental problem with trying to debunk it is that those who advance this
world view (it isn't, by proper definition, a "theory") have, in so doing,
already rejected the principles of reasoned discourse on the basis of which any
such argument would have to be erected. To embrace a non-falsifiable theory of
"magicness" is really to reject theory, to reject the derivation of theory from
observation, to reject science (and thereby to reject reason) in the first
place. To invoke superstition is NOT to explain, but to seek to *evade*
explanation's dominion. Now, proponents of creationism are certainly entitled
to do this, but why bother to argue with them??
In short, no use trying to reason somebody out of the assertion, "I don't
believe in reason."
"Non credo quia absurda est..."
-- Mark Fishman
Dept. of CIS
University of Florida
..uf-csg!markmrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/25/84)
I agree with Mark Fishman that it's frequently a waste of time arguing to try to convince creationists otherwise, for exactly the reasons he cited. However, I don't argue with them in the hope of coverting them. I argue for the sake of the others who read the file: those who don't know the distinction between science and creationism, and those who don't happen to know specific rebuttals of particular creationist fallacies of argument. It's important to help both those groups for at least two reasons: to keep them out of the creationist camp, and to enable them to effectively oppose creationist activism. Mike Huybensz ...mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (09/25/84)
> [Mark Fishman] > The fundamental problem with trying to debunk it is that those > who advance this world view (it isn't, by proper definition, a > "theory") have, in so doing, already rejected the principles of > reasoned discourse on the basis of which any such argument would > have to be erected. To embrace a non-falsifiable theory of > "magicness" is really to reject theory, to reject the derivation > of theory from observation, to reject science (and thereby to > reject reason) in the first place. To invoke superstition is NOT > to explain, but to seek to *evade* explanation's dominion. Some very good points. However, I am moved to ask: What is your proper definition of "theory"? I would assume from your comments that it should include a falsifiability criterion. Very well. What is the falsifiability test for (any brand of) evolution? -- 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
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/28/84)
Paul Dubois, you're a very shifty arguer. > [Mark Fishman] > The fundamental problem with trying to debunk it is that those > who advance this world view (it isn't, by proper definition, a > "theory") have, in so doing, already rejected the principles of > reasoned discourse on the basis of which any such argument would > have to be erected. To embrace a non-falsifiable theory of > "magicness" is really to reject theory, to reject the derivation > of theory from observation, to reject science (and thereby to > reject reason) in the first place. To invoke superstition is NOT > to explain, but to seek to *evade* explanation's dominion. > [Paul DuBois] > Some very good points. However, I am moved to ask: > > What is your proper definition of "theory"? I would assume from > your comments that it should include a falsifiability criterion. > Very well. What is the falsifiability test for (any brand of) > evolution? With a condescending "good point", you evade agreeing with any specific thing. But the phrase "falsifiable" rings a Pavlovian creationist bell, and you lurch into a side track. Very well. What makes evolution falsifiable is that it cannot be used to explain just any evidence that we might happen to encounter in the future. For example, if we find new organisms or their fossils that contradict our ideas of a tree- structured path of descent of life (remember medieval ideas of chimeras?), then evolution would be falsified. Or if some being gave a demonstration of the creation of a "kind", say a new mammal, and presented evidence that he was able to produce the other evidence that supports evolution, then evolution would be falsified. The reason creationism cannot be falsified, is because the theory itself is along the lines of "Whatever way it is, Gawd made it that way, so there!" When we find that cells of all eukaryotes are alike, someone remarks "Gawd made a good tool: why shouldn't he use it all over?" When we find an anomally such as the panda's thumb, someone remarks "Gawsh, that Gawd sure is imaginative!" As a side comment on the falsifiability argument, Karl Popper, the major major developer of the idea, argues strongly against creationist misapplication of that argument. So, Paul, which of Mark's points do you feel are "very good"? Mike Huybensz ...mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh (Quotes from Bertrand Russell, etc. to start appearing here soon....)
nelson@cvl.UUCP (Randal Nelson) (09/29/84)
> What is your proper definition of "theory"? I would assume from > your comments that it should include a falsifiability criterion. > Very well. What is the falsifiability test for (any brand of) > evolution? There are a number of conceivable situations which would serve to falsify, or at least cast grave doubts upon, any evolutionary theory. Some of these are: 1) The absence of any physical mechanism by which changes could be passed from generation to generation. At the present time, we are fairly certain that this mechanism is based on the self-replicating properties of DNA and related structures, but at the time at which evolutionary theories were advanced, such a mechanism was a prediction of the theories (though since borne out). 2) A complete lack of (non-lethal) mutations. Again, the presence of viable mutations is a prediction which seems to have been borne out. Mutation appears to be a common event in all living systems, and although most mutations are invisible or lethal, this is not always the case. The above are examples of falsifiability criteria which now appear to be contrary to established fact; however, this has only become evident by the dint of much effort, after an initial prediction had been made. At the time at which evolutionary theories were being propounded however, the tests represented open questions. It is also true that both the above situations represent negative claims of the form "If X is never found, then the the theory is false" (i.e. the theory predicts that X will be found). It is easy to show that such a statement can not falsify a theory (simply by finding X.) It is far more difficult to argue convincingly that simply because X has not yet been found, that we will never find it. We could simply be looking in the wrong place. A theory is much stronger if it also makes statements of the form "If Y is ever found then the theory is false". The theories of phsysics for example, make predictions of both forms: for instance, the existance of the nuetrino was predicted, (and eventually confirmed) and no violation of the law of conservation of energy has ever been observed. In short, a usable theory should make predictions both of the form (A) "X will be found", and (B) "Y will not be found". Both falsifiable conditions 1 and 2 above are the result of type A predictions. However there is no shortage of type B predictions for evolutionary theories. The following conditions, if met would cast grave doubts on the theories' basic validity. 3) The discovery of planets which are earthlike in terms of temperature, atmosphere and presence of water but on which no life exists. This is a test which a great number of investigators would like very much to make, because one of the most significant predictions of the evolutionary theories, is that under appropriate conditions, life will invariably arise. Unfortunately it does not appear likely that we will have any evidence one way or the other in the near future since the likely places to look are terribly far away. 4) The verifiable, spontaneous appearance of new life forms. This does not include rains of frogs, inexplicable infestations of vermin, the discovery of a new species of beetle in the Amazon rain forest, or even the Bibical account of the creation. Randal Nelson,(nelson@cvl) Center for Automation Research University of Maryland
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (10/01/84)
Mark,
Does this mean you hit the big U and we won't be
hearing from you any more ? No sense wasting time
on those of who have lost/thrown away the power to
reason :-) How did I come up with that :-) ??
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (10/01/84)
[repetition again]
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
this one before. The most popular, and reasonable, answer
is that outrageous anachronisms in the fossil record would
constitute disproof of evolution. These finds should be
discovered, and recorded, in situ (to avoid accusations of
fraud directed against the finders, should they be creationists).
The fossils should be clearly not intrusions from a later date
(burial sites or the result of an intermediate episode of a
ravine which subsequently filled in). The easiest to establish
that would be if the radiometric dating of the fossil matched the
surrounding rock. The anachronism can be the discovery of
the fossil remains of any animal at a date at which it could
not reasonably have evolved yet (e.g. human beings several tens
of millions of years old). The existence today of "living fossils"
(a silly term) is not a true anachronism since rare species will leave
no recognizable fossils. A species can only be called a living fossil
if it is very rare now, and common in the fossil record from some much
earlier epoch. This simply shows a species which was very sucessful at
one time and is not now. Genera which have been common for a long time
(cockroaches - or are they a family?) will leave fossils from many epochs
in the geological record.
An example of a succesful evolutionary prediction is the prediction
that related species (judging by their morphology and the fossil record)
will show biochemical similarities whereas morphologically similar but
more distantly related species will show lesser similarities.
R. Miller has suggested that DNA similarities are a successful
prediction of creationism. I don't understand what kind of similarities
he is suggesting ought to follow from creationism. I don't understand
how any of what we see in modern biochemistry follows from creationism.
Finally, if all he means is that similar species have similar biochemistry
I don't understand why he thinks this follows from creationism and not
evolution. I'd greatly appreciate a clarification of any or all of these
points.
"I can't help it if my Ethan Vishniac
knee jerks" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
Department of Astronomy
University of Texas
Austin, Texas 78712ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (10/02/84)
> [repetition again] > > 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? -- 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