kin@laidbak.UUCP (Kin Wong) (09/18/84)
On Creation Here are my views on creationism. It seems to me that the central theme to creationism is that "God created the Universe". However, inherent to this thesis is also the notion Why, i.e. "for what purpose". I would like to make a distinction between the two. It can be argued that "God created the Universe" is a theory, and whether the theory is scientific or not depends on whatever scientific evidence that can be gathered in support of such a theory, and whatever scientific evidence can be gathered against such a theory, or for another theory. The second point, "for what purpose" did God created the Universe as it is, however, definitely belong to theology or moral philosophy. Science, or the scientific method, may be likened to be "Successive Approximation" in a grand scale. There are many other examples of successive approximations, such as the iterative methods for solving differential equations. Science is a slow and successive method of getting to the "truths" of nature, properties of the universe, and how things (matter, planet Earth) are the way the are now. The question "how come there are lightning and earthquakes" is basically a science question, but "for what purpose" did lightning and earthquakes occur (e.g. to strike at infidels or to bury a whole town of sinners), is not a science question, but a moral question for believers. Now that we have settled on what is within the boundary of science (I hope), lets consider the creationism vs evolution issue. On the creationism side, there is the Bible, which roughly states that God created the Heavens, Earth and Adam and Eve, etc. Without the Bible, there would be hardly any evidence; for other evidence, such as the Shroud (another hotly contested issue) and the illusive Ark, are really "evidence" to suggest the "absolute truth" of the Bible. Thus if there is no Bible, and an archeologist found a 4000 year old ark, then it would just be a 4K year old ark; to then say that a 4K yr old ark implies "God created the Universe" is obviously farfetched. Thus it all boils down to the book called Genesis. The Reverend Jerry Falwell, on a recent ABC Nightline program is at least honest is stating that his belief in creationism stems from his belief in the true Word of the Bible. Given that there is now contention that creationism can be proved or stand its ground without the Bible, it would be instructive for those who hold such views to give a comprehensive list of their evidence, and tell us in what way their theory of creationism differs from the Falwell version. On the evolution side, much have been added since Darwin's time. Such things as genes, chromosomes, DNA, manufacturing of complex proteins in laboratories, studies of insect resistance to pesticides, mutations, etc (all of which are not results from creation "science"), have contributed much to how evolution takes place, thus adding to its credibility. While at Darwins time it is thought that evolution is always a very slow process, it is now thought that mutations give a way of speeding up the process. Personally I do not see why if evolution is true, it would mean that "God created the Universe" is false, for it can be easily argued that God first created the Universe, and various lifeforms eventually evolved from it. One may point out the Big Bang theory of creation, but it can be easily argued that it is God who created the Big Bang, but all these as yet are still very much at a hypothesis stage, and evolution can stand on its own without any of these theories of creation. Thus I believe the current controversy of creationism vs evolution exists not because evolution runs counter to a theory that "God created the Universe" per se, but because it runs counter to one specific creation theory, that is biblical creation. On the question of faiths, it would be true that science requires faith as well. First there are the faiths of those who proposed their theories, which they believe to be true, then there is the faith that science can really lead us to the truths, and ultimately there is the faith that what we observed is indeed real, i.e. that events still occur the way we observed them to be even when we are not observing, but unless there are convincing contrary evidence or arguments, such faiths are not particularly unreasonable. There are however two very important differences between the faiths in science compared to the faiths in Christianity, Islam, etc., and they are the lack of moral implications and a specific ultimate aim. Moral implications: if you do not think that evolution is convincing enough, you are not condemned to Hell; but if you do not believe in creationism, the moral implication is that you'll spend time in purgatory. This is one reason why creationism is not science. Ultimate aim: In science there is no fix specific aim or "truth", as science progresses, it is lead by whatever scientific theories, supported by whatever scientific evidence, that are most convincing. Thus in early 20th century, Bohr proposed his theory about orbiting electrons, which have long since be replaced by much better wave and particle theories. Few at that time would have visioned the current theories. In creationism, however, there is one specific aim, and that is to prove that God created the Universe the way as described in the Bible, regardless of whatever evidence. That, my friends, is not science, but special pleading. If there had been no Bible, it would have been laughable to suggest that the Earth is a mere 5k or 10k yrs old, given all the contrary evidence. The existence of this controversy is only indicative of 3 characteristics prevalent in the species homo sapiens -- Influence of the Church, Dogmatism and Prejudice. kin wong (..ihnp4!iwlc8!klw)