dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (09/14/84)
% [Dick Dunn]
% If you're going to try to support creationism by
% disproving evolutionism, you can't succeed; there are more than two
% theories in the universe.
This statement has been made several times on the net, usually
to point out that creationists are sometimes guilty of acting
as though there is a simple dichotomy:
creation vs. evolution
As Dick points out, it is of course true that when there are > two
theories to consider, one cannot prove any particular theory by
discrediting any particular other theory. There may be others
left untouched. My question is: by saying there are more than
two theories, do you mean non-creation/non-evolutionary theories,
or rather that there is more than a single evolutionary theory?
(For example, the set [classical Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism,
saltatory evolution])
If the former alternative, please specify what you refer to.
By the way, "you" in that question means anyone who has made a
statement similar to Dick's; it doesn't mean Dick should answer
and no one else. All comments welcome.
--
Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
"I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the
power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth."
Romans 1:23rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) (09/17/84)
> My question is: by saying there are more than > two theories, do you mean non-creation/non-evolutionary theories, > or rather that there is more than a single evolutionary theory? > (For example, the set [classical Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, > saltatory evolution]) You are leaving out possibilities again. There is more than one creation theory as well. Some versions are much simpler than the "six day" theory (I think I heard a creationist use the phrase "Ocam's Razor"). For instance it has been hypothesized that God said "Be!" and everything was. Would it be "equal treatment" to teach the Christian theory but not the theory of the ancient Greeks (which does not include an omnipotent creator)? Mail may not reach me as our site is flaky right now. Ralph Hartley rlh@cvl.ARPA seismo!rlgvax!cvl!rlh
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (09/18/84)
> > [Paul DuBois] > > My question is: by saying there are more than > > two theories, do you mean non-creation/non-evolutionary theories, > > or rather that there is more than a single evolutionary theory? > > (For example, the set [classical Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, > > saltatory evolution]) > [Ralph Hartley] > You are leaving out possibilities again. There is more than one > creation theory as well. Some versions are much simpler than the > "six day" theory (I think I heard a creationist use the phrase "Ocam's > Razor"). For instance it has been hypothesized that God said > "Be!" and everything was. Ok, there are these creation possibilities, for instance: (i) day-age theory - creation took place over several ages, each age seeing a new set of organisms being created. (ii) theistic evolution (this of course would be an evolutionary possibility as well). (iii) recent creation, such as the ICR folks are proponents of. And we can go around about whether the above three are really theories or not. But that's not what I was asking. What I was really asking was: when people use the "there are more than two theories" statement, do you refer to theories that are neither creative nor evolutionary? If so, what are they? -- 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
stuart@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Stuart Kurtz) (09/20/84)
OK Paul, if you'd like a theory of origins which is neither evolutionary nor creative, how about a devolutionary theory. In such a theory, our ancestors were Gods & Heros, and through the passage of time we become a degenerate, weak, immoral race of near animals. This is a remarkably common cosmology, and frequently is combined with creationism. A more ancient theory would be to deny that there was a creation of any sort. What is, has been before. What has been, will be again. There is no beginning, nor is there an end. [Yes, Ecclesiates is one of my favorite books. It has much more food for thought than Genesis, but most fundamentalists don't read well enough to get that far... ;-) Yes, that's a gratuitous insult, but not to worry, if you've read this far, it doesn't apply to you.] Such a cosmology is also frequent -- although seldom stated -- in our culture. There are many non-trivial variations on this theme: in one, the world is completely monotonous -- every age is exactly like every other age [Ecclesiates]; another variant allows substantial change from age to age -- species rise and fall, only to rise again. [This latter cosmology prevails in the "Conan" books.] To a large extent, evolutionary, creationist, devolutionary and cyclic cosmologies are Western. If you admit Eastern/mystic cosmologies, there are more options -- all of which I am admittedly almost totally ignorant. As I recall the Hindu explaination, our current existance is but one of many lifetimes our higher essence must undergo before reaching Nirvana. The various lifetimes are at higher (cow) or lower (ant) levels. Our spiritual maturity at the end of each life determines whether our next lifetime will be at a higher or lower level. I don't know enough about their beliefs to know whether or not they admit a specific act of creation, or whether they view such a question as even being relevant. This cosmology gained a significant place in Western culture through "Johnathan Livingston Seagull." I haven't tried to be exhaustive here, just to point out a range of possibilities. Stu ihnp4!gargoyle!stuart