bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (09/09/84)
I am glad to see the return of Ray Miller to the net. Last spring, before the political upheaval in this part of the world, he and I were in the throes of a fairly heavy debate. Since I seem to have been returned to the net in a more stable position, I am more than happy to take up where we left off. There has been a great deal said in net.origins in the past few weeks and a great deal more said that I was not in a position to read. I will try to deal with some of Ray's points. On the relative 'scientific' merits of creationism and evolutionary theory: >>The point Larry Bickford was trying to make was that strictly speaking, >>science must be *repeatable* so that it can be *testable*. No one was >>around for the origin of the earth. No one was around for the origin >>of life on this planet. Thus, creation and evolution are in the same >>boat. Whatever happened occurred in the past and thus falls outside >>the scientific method. That is not to say science cannot investigate >>the matter. Model, and not proof, is a better word for the study of >>the question of origins. Well, not quite. Evolutionists maintain that the fundamental relationships and processes which govern the universe are unchanging. Given the same initial state the process is repeatable without outside intervention. Creationists, on the other hand, maintain that at some point or for some period a series of *special* laws were in effect due to outside intervention. For the process to be repeated this agency must choose (?) to intervene again. On the mutual exclusivity and exhaustivity of creationism and evolutionary theory: >>Obviously then, you haven't read any creationist material at all. The >>reason this is true is that either: naturalistic laws are sufficient to >>explain all we can see and measure are they aren't; all of life >>developed from a single source or it didn't; random processes acting on >>organic matter are sufficient to add the amount of information >>contained in the DNA program of the human body or they aren't; the >>fossil record paints a picture of an upward growing tree or it doesn't; >>etc. etc. etc. Ray, stop setting up straw men! Evolutionary theory as we understand it no more subsumes all possible naturalistic models of origin than Creationism covers all possible non-naturalistic models. (Creationists continually deny the validity of the notion of life on earth being "seeded" by an outside by otherwise naturalistic agency even though the "evidence" for that is indistiguishable from the "evidence" for creationism.) This is one of the sillier nonsequitors that creationism offers us. >>On the contrary, it is precisely *because* of the scientific data that >>I'm a creationist. I'm GLAD the fossil record is the way that it is. >>Some of you already know via personal mail that I used to be a theistic >>evolutionist. Upon hearing: 1) alternative, but valid, explanations >>for well known data and 2) data that is somehow, um, er, not covered in >>classrooms dominated by evolutionists, I was forced by compelling >>evidence to change my religious interpretation of Genesis. So no, I >>no longer have a "test" of my faith when I look at the record of >>paleontology, geology, biology, etc. It simply confirms it. Clearly, I find the evidence less compelling than you do. (You never did take up my challenge over the Paluxy datum.) While there are seemingly large numbers of seemingly anomalous observations when reported a site at a time, they really only cover a few pages when listed separately. Were the evidence *confirming* the evolutionary viewpoint listed similarly it would, and does, constitute volumes upon volumes. When confronted with explanations for these 'anomalous observations' that are consistant with evolutionary theory, creationists seem just as bad about dismissing them out-of-hand as they accuse evolutionary theorists of being about their datum. Well, I rejoin the argument as one who will listen, and make some serious effort to refute fairly, such 'evidence.' I expect the same sort of fairness from you. -- Byron C. Howes {decvax|akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (09/10/84)
[]
to Ray Miller:
I get the impression that you do not consider the "normal" catagorization
of life into species, etc to be valid. Is this a correst assesment
of your position. If so, could you explain?
For the benefit of those us us who missed or forgot your previous
postings, will you please post a summary of the evidence that
caused you to change from being an evolutionist to a creationist?
Will you please tell us how it changed you interpretation of
the Bible?
I am especially interested in hearing about things that cannot
possibly be explained by natualistic laws. (as opposed to things
that are not readily explained by the present set of known laws).
You imply that if naturalistic laws are not sufficient to explain
all observed data, then the current theory put forth by creationists
must be correct. Is this a correct reading of your position?
--
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 80307miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP (09/14/84)
#N:uiucdcsb:32500001:000:5029
uiucdcsb!miller Sep 7 23:55:00 1984
After not posting any creationist articles on the net for several months
(I was finishing my MS thesis) I have returned. I saved all of the notes over
the summer in hopes I would respond or tie up some loose ends from the previous
discussions I was in on, but alas, it got much too thick. We'll see how it
goes in the future. I may still get back to some of the more important ones.
I'll start this time by responding to Phil Polli. A lot of his note was
simple sarcasm and thus can be ignored. But he does ask some good questions.
>Well, I guess that if eyewitnesses are required, he's right.
The point Larry Bickford was trying to make was that strictly speaking, science
must be *repeatable* so that it can be *testable*. No one was around for the
origin of the earth. No one was around for the origin of life on this planet.
Thus, creation and evolution are in the same boat. Whatever happened occurred
in the past and thus falls outside the scientific method. That is not to say
science cannot investigate the matter. Model, and not proof, is a better word
for the study of the question of origins.
>It was obvious that creationists assumed this, [evidence against one model is
>evidence for the other] but I've never seen it explicitly stated before.
Obviously then, you haven't read any creationist material at all. The reason
this is true is that either: naturalistic laws are sufficient to explain all
we can see and measure are they aren't; all of life developed from a single
source or it didn't; random processes acting on organic matter are sufficient
to add the amount of information contained in the DNA program of the human body
or they aren't; the fossil record paints a picture of an upward growing tree or
it doesn't; etc. etc. etc.
>I would love to see a succinct, testable definition of "major kinds of plants
>and animals".
I would love to see a succinct, testable definition of "species". Actually,
both creationists and evolutionist are about at the same level of exactness for
now. Both rely on reproductive characteristics, common traits, etc. Creation-
ists would currently say something like kinds being a group of organisms with
a common ancestral gene pool. A current area of research for geneticists who
are creationists is to be able to determine plant/animal kind boundaries simply
by studying the DNA. No doubt evolutionists will welcome this advance too for
species study if it is successful. See "What is Creation Science?" for more
on the relationship of species and kinds.
>A challenge to creationists: Predict something new from the theory. Propose a
>test which will verify the prediction. Are any of you willing to bet your
>faith on the outcome?
I did just that on the net about 9 months ago, in the area of maximum varia-
bility. Are you willing to do the same? If evolution is to qualify as a
science, you must be able to propose tests which will *falsify* it. Can you
think of any? Will you post any to the net? Are you willing to bet your faith?
I should mention the speed of light controversy too. Dr. Setterfield
does raise some interesting points, e.g., that some calculated values for c
were higher in the past. They were higher than experimental error should
account for, even using the technology of the time. Furthermore, one of the
measurements came from a Nobel Prize winner in physics. Nevertheless, frankly
I think he's wrong. Although I don't want to exclude any area of interesting
research, I do think Dr. Setterfield has drawn too much of a conclusion from
too little data. Many leading creationists in the physics field also feel this
way, e.g., Drs. Barnes and Gentry also think he's wrong. I urge all creation-
ists *not* to cite his work, at least for now. Unfortunately, as Lew pointed
out, some creationists like Dr. Brown have jumped the gun on this one. Sigh.
gino@voder (sorry, you didn't sign your name) raises an issue I keep
hearing over and over. He writes:
>Of course, such arguments can't override faith - God could have [done
>something - see below] for some reason (I've heard Christians say "to test
>our faith").
where [done something] is usually placing fossils but in this case is amino
acids on meteors. Well, I've heard lots of evolutionists saying that creation-
ists say that, but I've never heard or read creationists actually saying it.
On the contrary, it is precisely *because* of the scientific data that I'm a
creationist. I'm GLAD the fossil record is the way that it is. Some of you
already know via personal mail that I used to be a theistic evolutionist. Upon
hearing: 1) alternative, but valid, explanations for well known data and
2) data that is somehow, um, er, not covered in classrooms dominated by evolu-
tionists, I was forced by compelling evidence to change my religious interpre-
tation of Genesis. So no, I no longer have a "test" of my faith when I look at
the record of paleontology, geology, biology, etc. It simply confirms it.
A. Ray Miller
Univ Illinois