[net.origins] Responses and More Responses, Part 2 of 2

lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (09/08/84)

[More responses to the 1000+ lines of followup]

cvl!rlh:
"Note that new proteins have been 'created' within the last century. In
particular, enzymes that deactivate pesticides in insects. Resistance to
DDT was non-existent at the turn of the century; now almost all insect
pests have it."

Those that didn't died out; those that did multiplied to fill their
place. Nothing new has been generated.

"To most scientists...being asked to prove that the world is not 10,000
years old is like being asked to prove that the world is not flat."

OK, start proving. Radiometrics? Even 25 years ago (in _Science_, no
less), results of experiments showed that the answer to the question
"How old is this rock?" is "How old do you want it to be?" Geologic
column? Nowhere is it completely intact, and in many places, the rocks
are out of order (believing in the kind of overthrusts that evolution
requires takes more faith than believing in God). Fossils in general?
No, too many appear in too many different sedimentary layers.

Then what determines "age"? The *assumption* of evolution, applied to
index fossils. According to evolution, the fossils date the rocks that
date the fossils! Nice job of circular reasoning.

ut-ngp!anthro:
"1) Evolution is a theory whose domain is change in life forms.  This includes
   the past, present and future.
2) Evolution is generally applied to populations of life forms, rather than
   individual life forms.
3) Evolution is a theory, but the mechanisms of evolution are observable,
   replicable processes."

Inadequate. The subject is origins - the model must include cosmogony.
This is perhaps the biggest break between the two models - evolution
sidesteps the final question - the question of the beginning. Has
naturalism reached its limits? If so, why gripe about the creation
cosmogony?

Also on (3), the mechanisms to produce *new* traits are neither
observable nor replicable. There has yet to be a case of mutations
producing something *new*.

"[Completed creation] is the primary mechanism, and to my knowledge there
is no body of evidence that such a mechanism has ever been observed."

OK, how did matter and energy arise and get organized? Or do we go the
way of Physics Professor Tryon of CUNY - that matter has created itself ex
nihilo? This is the need for the complete model. Further, the creation
and evolution models have the cosmos in two different states when the
"magic" (Fischer's term) ends - creation at a place of known low
entropy, with things winding down, evolution in a state of
disorganization with things building up.

"[processes of conservation to sustain the creation] also creates
problems for creationism as scientific theory, since there is no
indication of what the sustaining principles, or as we call them in the
pool room, the 'correction factors' are."

That and the third point are seen in the First Two Laws of
Thermodynamics.

"I deal with evolution as a principle for present day analysis."

Men like Francis Bacon, Newton, Pasteur and others used belief in
creation as a principle for their analyses.

ihuxl!pvp:
"How improbable is it that the Creator did it all x years ago? x+t
years ago? And does creationism really only posit one period of
supernatural intervention? I thought the worldwide flood was caused
supernaturally."

The creation model allows for an old earth, although there are evidences
for a young earth (concentration of various elements in the ocean and
atmosphere, pressure of subterranean oil being two; _The Case for
Scientific Creation_ contains a longer list). Evolution, however,
*demands* an old earth.

I stated in my earlier article that whimsical supernatural intervention
would make a model useless. Indeed, Bacon founded the scientific method
on the belief that the supernatural intervention had been orderly and
systematic, thus capable of study. Scientifically, once the sustaining
principles of the cosmos were in place, there seems no other need for
supernatural events. Philip's last statement indicates a lack of study
of *scientific* creationism, merely swallowing the evolutionary line.

"By its very nature, the creationist model must be able to explain any
possible observation. If it couldn't, then the believers would be faced
with the prospect of their faith being subject to actual test."

Same is true of evolution. Within the first eight pages of _Scientific
Creationism_, Morris cites several references of the dogma of evolution.
E.g., Ehrlich and Birch from _Nature_ Vol 216 (1967) p352:
	"Our theory of evolution has become...one which cannot be
	refuted by any possible observations. It is thus 'outside of
	empirical science,' but not necessarily false. No one can think
	of ways in which to test it.... (Evolutionary ideas) have become
	part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of
	our training."

In _Evolution and Christian Faith_, Bolton Davidheiser goes into this
much deeper, with far more references. A volume worth reading,
especially with the revealing quote from D.M.S.Watson while he was
President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science:
	"...the theory of evolution ... [is] ... universally accepted
	not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to
	the true, but because the the only alternative, special
	creation, is clearly incredible."

"A challenge to creationists: Predict something new from the theory.
Propose a test which will verify the prediction.
Are any of you will to bet your faith on the outcome?"

Robert Gentry of the Oak Ridge National Laboratories in Tennessee offers
two challenges:
	1. He is willing to give up his position that granite was an
	   original created rock if anyone is able to devise a set of
	   processes which can be implemented in the laboratory to
	   actually produce one small piece of granite.
	2. In his own words, "If anyone will synthesize a single
	   polonium-218 halo in a piece of granite, I will abandon my
	   claim that they were formed by primordial polonium-218." He
	   would then have to abandon the other implications of his
	   model, i.e., that the world was created cool and solid, not
	   having gone through either a vapor or liquid phase.

opus!rcd (not to rehash points covered earlier):
"To reiterate, NO. Evidence against ONE naturalistic model compels
consideration of others."

And every naturalistic model thus far proposed ends up at evolution.
See also Watson, 2 paragraphs back.

hao!ward:
"If the human animal is found to have an immortal part, then it simply
becomes the task of science to explain what it is and how it evolved."

The last three words assume the conclusion.

"Science simply refuses to depend on divine intervention as an
explanation of anything."

Such a science is bigoted instead of neutral. And until science gets
*all* the answers, it has no place making such an absolute statement.

ihuxq!ken:
"But if the explanation is not
naturalistic, it's not science.  By definition!"

Sez who? Webster's has "systematized knowledge derived from observation,
study, and experimentation..."

"...belief in the Bible is nothing to be ashamed of.  It's nothing to
put in public school science curricula either."

More of the "Bible in the school" myth. Scientific creation is
nonsectarian.

iham1!gjphw
" Duane Gish, a prominent creationist, has written that in any conflict
between the Bible and scientific observations, the Bible must be
considered preeminent."

He may do so for his personal beliefs, but he'll need scientific
observations for any model he proposes.

" The statements made by creationists, both here and
 in other public forums, display a singular absence of concern for the evidence
 and arguments advanced in opposition to creationism or in support of laws and
 theories developed independently of evolution (e.g., physics and the speed of
 light, chemistry and thermodynamics, geology and radioactivity)."

Are we reading the same books? I have not read Setterfield's ideas on c,
but the evidence I have heard does not seem to me to be sufficient to
draw as much a conclusion as Setterfield apparently does.

Apart from that, creation scientists *do* concern themselves with the
evidence and arguments presented. I rather find the *evolutionists*,
fully steeped in their dogma, ignoring the opposing arguments. ee my
parallel article excerpting from Kerkut's _Implications of Evolution_.
-- 
		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.

rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (09/18/84)

I'd like to compliment Larry Bickford on having collected together such a
large body of evolutionist statements and attempting to answer them all.

Unfortunately, his response has no focus; one can't answer any significant
part of it without painfully (and unreadably) picking it to pieces.  Worse
yet, a large number of his responses (I didn't chase all of the preceding
articles) fall into two categories:
	- he took the statement of the referenced article out of context,
	  substantially distorting its content
	- he simply restated the earlier creationist misunderstanding--i.e.,
	  one can't tell that he read the substantive part of the
	  evolutionist position.
I'm slightly peeved at the creationists' reliance on creative arguing
techniques; qubix!lab is hardly the only one.
-- 
Dick Dunn	{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd		(303)444-5710 x3086
   ...Never offend with style when you can offend with substance.