ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (09/17/84)
[There's no intelligent life here, Scotty.] Larry Bickford's most recent contributions to this discussion are very lengthy. Although I take exception to almost everything he said I'm only going to respond to a few philosophical points. Later, if others don't respond to the rest of his comments I'll try to get around to writing more. First, on the subject of various models of the origin of life: >>voder!gino >>"The earlier model is creationism, now challenged by evolutionism." >I have neither seen nor heard of any *scientific model* for creation >that existed before the 1960's. I have never heard of a genuine *scientific model* for creation. However, prior to the middle of the nineteenth century creationism was at least as reasonable as any other belief since the evidence for the nature of the Earth's past was sparse and not well understood. Modern creationism stands in contradiction to the available evidence and is therefore *less* scientific than earlier creationist beliefs. >>> L. Bickford >>> the two models are mutually exclusive and exhaustive... >>No other models allowed? All possible explanations are here? Convince me." >Yawn...either *all* the processes *were* natural, or *at least one* >*wasn't*. Simple logic. This strikes me as deliberately obtuse. On the off chance that you're being serious let me spell out a range of possibilities: 1. Life originated by natural processes once in the distant past. All living organisms are the descendants of the original lifeform. 2. Life originated several times in the distant past. Living organisms do not necessarily have the same ancestor. 3. Life was placed here in the distant past by an alien civilization. All living organisms are descended from this seeding. 4. Life has been continuously modified by little green men according to their particular whims. Many different organisms have been designed and added to Earth's environment at various epochs in Earth's past. 5. God created everything in the cosmos 10 billion years ago. He then went away and sulked. Subsequently history followed model #1. 6. God created everything in the cosmos and seeded some planets with simple lifeforms. He then went away and meditated. All life on Earth evolved from this seeding. 7. God created the universe and took a close interest in its subsequent development. He has repeatedly intervened in miraculous ways to design the present range of life on Earth. 8. God created the universe and took a close interest in its subsequent development. He has guided the evolution of life on Earth, but only in ways that are consistent with the operation of natural laws. (After all, they are *his* laws). 9. God created the universe 6000 years ago. All indications to the contrary are just his idea of a joke. No group of organisms on Earth has evolved into a different group. 10. Zippy the Pinhead, glory be to his name, created the universe 10 seconds ago. Models 1-4 are completely devoid of the action of any deity. Models 6-10 rely upon divine intervention. Scientific creationism, as discussed in this group, consists of model 9 (although model 7 has also been suggested from time to time as being consistent with creationist ideas). Model 1 is the preferred scientific model for evolution today. I am sure other people in this group can add models ad infinitum (Ragnarok is coming! Do your children know how to fight frost giants?). Note that some of these are indistinguishable from #1 not only today, but at all times. In particular models 5,6, and 8 represent a sufficiently subtle form of divine intervention that they differ from #1 only in the ways the present world as described by an atheist differs from the same world described by the Pope. Another point is that some of these models contain #1 as an incomplete description. The religious elements of these models are superfluous additions to model #1. Superfluous in the sense that nothing in the evidence requires them. To add them is a religious decision, certainly not a proper part of science. One final note, Mr. Bickford repeats a point that has been raised before, that various distinguished (and dead) scientists believed in a divine creator. This is irrelevant. It would be irrelevant even if these people were living today. A decision of faith is not rendered scientific by being believed by a scientist, even a good one. Moreover, all the people mentioned had access to a small fraction of the physical evidence that we have concerning the Earth's past. It's easy (and pointless) to cite erroneous beliefs held by previous generations. "Cute signoffs are for Ethan Vishniac perverts" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas Austin, Texas 78712