[net.origins] Let's have scientific evolutionism too

pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (08/08/84)

>[from Dick Dunn:]
>In the few months that I've been following this group, I've seen a number
>of complaints along the lines of:
>	"You're talking about religious creationism.  That's not the same
>	as scientific creationism.  There is a creationist view which
>	doesn't rely on the Bible."
>and I've occasionally seen offers to post some information on the basics of
>scientific creationism.
>
>Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't yet seen an explanation of what is
>meant by scientific creationism.  If the article has appeared and I just
>missed it, would someone please send email to point it out to me.  But if,
>as I suspect, there hasn't been anything, would one of the scientific-
>creation proponents please try to post something, subject to the following
>two constraints:
>	1.  Don't just give references.  References are fine for someone
>	who wants to spend the time/effort/money to locate them for further
>	reading, but all we need here are some basics to get us started,
>	and a lot more people will read the material if it's right here in
>	front of their noses.
>	2.  Try to focus on what scientific creationism has to say, on its
>	own merits, rather than comparing it with evolution.  That is, I
>	think we need to see some creationist material which is positive on
>	its own ground rather than negative toward evolution.  [Stated yet
>	another way, I'm interested in evaluating creationism, not weighing
>	it against evolutionism.  After all, they might both be wrong:-]

A very good idea, I think.  I think articles of that nature have been posted
back in the early days before net.origins was (the battle went on in net.misc
then).  But one thing I have noticed in trying to follow the debate is that
no evolutionist has been under these constraints to do the same thing with
evolutionism... and no one has complained about that.  I wonder just how well
evolutionism stands on its own merits.  There seems to be the tacit assumption
that evolutionism relys more heavily upon, or is even derived wholly from
empirical scientific data--that there is little "filling in of cracks" with
a religious type belief and speculation.  Evolutionism has enjoyed being the
status quo, the basic assumption, in the public education of most of us.  We've
all been told how scientific it is--indeed, that it *is* science.  (And so
we've been told by evolutionists that creationism is not.)

All in all I think the general public has a very fuzzy idea of the definite
workings of evolutionary theory.  We all know about Darwin, and the
concept most people have of evolution rests on fragments of neo-Darwinian
evolutionism.  But is neo-Darwinism more than just fragments?  Norman MacBeth,
an evolutionist and lawyer who has made the study of evolution his avocation
for more than a decade, has said that it is not.  He claims that the main
reason the synthetic theory has enjoyed such wide acceptance is that no
one ever took the time to formulate it and work out the details.  Then
we have people like Steven J. Gould saying that neo-Darwinian theory is dead
while still proclaiming evolution to be a fact (although not in the sense
that we are used to thinking of facts.  He qualifies the word "fact".)

There is much internal debate on the very mechanisms that are supposed
to be responsible for evolutionary progression.  Whether it be natural
selection, genetic mutation, hopful monsters, inherited traits (Lamarkianism
still lives in some quarters) or Gould's own (along with Niles Eldredge)
punctuated equilibria.  In my understanding all of these have problems
and fall short of being a plausible mechanism.  Some are mutually exclusive,
others are built around the lack of evidence (fossils) rather than its
existence.  It's hard to image, for example, punctuated equlibria accounting
for all the gaps in the fossil record.  PE is concievable, but it couldn't
have all happened that way.

So Dick Dunn's suggestion is a good one.  But let's have the same from
evolutionist too.  Why should creationists have to cater to the assumption
that evolutionism has "made the grade" as a solid explanation of origins?
-- 

Paul Dubuc 		{cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbscc!pmd

  The true light that enlightens every one was coming
  into the world...		(John 1:9)

howes@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes ) (08/13/84)

Paul Dubuc begs Dick Dunn's question in a very novel manner.   Dunn asks
for some concise but complete statement of scientific creationism which
stands on its own and does not depend upon an attack on evolutionary
theory.  Dubuc responds by asking that the proponents of evolutionary
theory be held to the same standard.

So far so good.  Dubuc, however, goes on to complain about the tacit
presuppositions seemingly imbedded in evolutionary theory and asserts
that there is nothing less "religious" about evolutionary theory than
about scientific (or religious) creationism.  A fair point, perhaps,
but it is not a meaningful response to Dick Dunn's question.

I submit that evolutionary theory is not as dependent upon its exposi-
tion upon creationism, either scientific or religious, as creationism
is upon evolutionary theory.  From my readings into the creationist
literature I find that the whole of it depends upon pitons placed into
supposed cracks in the evolutionary scheme.  Such research as has been
done is inevitably used as ammunition against evolution rather than to
supplement the body of creationist theory.  One gets the feeling that
creationists believe that disproving evolutionary theory in its current
state will somehow validate creationism.  This seems to me to be a
little strange.

That evolutionary theory stands on its own does not mean it is an 
unassailable block.  Were that so, scientific progress would not be
possible.  It does mean that its exposition does not depend upon 
undercutting other notions, be they creationism, Lysenkoism or stranger
pictures of the development of life.

That kind of exposition of scientific creationism was, I believe, what
Dick Dunn was looking for.
-- 


					   Byron Howes
					UNC - Chapel Hill
				  ({decvax,akgua}!mcnc!unc!howes)

gino@voder.UUCP (Gino Bloch) (08/14/84)

Anyone for religious evolutionism?

rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (08/16/84)

Brian Howes:
> Paul Dubuc begs Dick Dunn's question in a very novel manner.   Dunn asks
> for some concise but complete statement of scientific creationism which
> stands on its own and does not depend upon an attack on evolutionary
> theory.  Dubuc responds by asking that the proponents of evolutionary
> theory be held to the same standard.
> 
> So far so good.  Dubuc, however, goes on to complain...
>...
>...A fair point, perhaps,
>but it is not a meaningful response to Dick Dunn's question.

In fact, although Paul's article does pose some interesting questions,
Brian is right (though too kind):  Dubuc's reply is not only NOT a
meaningful response to my request (for information on scientific
creationism) but actually dodges it in the same way that creationists so
often do--by counterattacking against evolutionism!  What I'm interested
in, and WHAT I SAID I WAS INTERESTED IN, was some brief exposition of the
tenets of scientific creationism.  Picking at evolutionism doesn't have a
damn thing to do with what I asked.

Sorry if I seem overly testy, but I'm not much swayed by "changing the
subject" as a technique in meaningful discussion.
-- 
Dick Dunn	{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd		(303)444-5710 x3086
	...Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (08/16/84)

> Anyone for religious evolutionism?

That's what we have now...

-- 

Paul DuBois		{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist...
						Colossians 1:17

gino@voder.UUCP (Gino Bloch) (08/18/84)

No, I think we DO have scientific evolutionism AND I think we do
have religious creationism.

I've been careless about my `` :-) '' symbols, thanks to general
misunderstanding - on my part - of what's obvious.  That's obvious.

ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (08/18/84)

[]
>> Anyone for religious evolutionism?
>
>That's what we have now...

Oh great!  Seeing that they cannot counter the charge that Creationism
is really religion, they counter with the charge that science
is really religion, too.

And War is Peace.  And Truth is Falsehood.  And the Great American
Religion of Hate is really all about love.

Right.

-- 
Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!sa!ward
ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO  80307

lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (08/24/84)

[Modern man is the missing link apes and humans :-]

Origins. How did what is get to be the way it is? Unless there are
eyewitnesses, there is no scientific "proof" of what occurred. We can
formulate models, test them against one another, and see what accounts
for the evidence better, with fewer secondary assumptions.

Too many assume evolution is *proven*. Forget it - that evolution has
occurred as evolutionists would like us to believe *cannot* be
*scientifically* proven. Neither can creation.

What has been done is that a *model* to explain the evidence has been
set forth, and now a challenging model has also been set forth. What are
they? Basically:
	NATURALISM: the features that are present have arisen wholly
		from present laws and processes;
	SUPERNATURALISM: present laws and processes are inadequate to
		explain current features; therefore, supernatural
		intervention must have occurred.

According to the ideas of many, "science" cannot allow for supernatural
intervention. (Indeed, if there were whimsical supernatural
intervention, scientists should probably pack up and find other jobs.)
However, if a naturalistic model requires secondary assumptions that
are either numerous or improbable, a supernatural model should be
considered if it is *scientifically usable as a model*. Further, since
the two models are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, evidence against
the naturalistic model compels consideration of the supernatural one.

Evolution presents itself as the naturalistic model. Time, influx of
energy from the sun, natural selection, and other things are seen as
enabling this to occur. But the evolutionary model has a multitude of
secondary assumptions - things that the model does not *predict*, and
thus must be *explained* - and many of these tend toward the improbable.

Can a supernatural explanation provide a simpler solution: more
predictability and fewer secondary assumptions? The idea "It was all
formed ten seconds ago just as it is" does not qualify as a scientific
model, for it gives no value for predicting the kind of evidence we
should expect to find. If the intervention is not orderly, the model
becomes useless.

Scientific creation proposes a usable model. (I have yet to see or hear
of any other supernatural *scientific models*.) Its concept of the
supernatural activity is:
	"...a period of special creation in the beginning, during which
	all the basic laws and categories of nature, including the major
	kinds of plants and animals, as well as man, were brought into
	existence by special creative and integrative processes which
	are no longer in operation.
	"Once the creation was finished, these processes of creation were
	replaced by processes of conservation, which were designed by the
	creator to sustain and maintain the basic systems he had made.
	"...a basic principle of disintegration now at work in nature."
		Morris, _Scientific Creationism_, p12

The creation model also posits a catastrophic source for geologic
features - "formed rapidly over a short period of time" [Morris, p91] -
rather than uniformitarian (slowly over long periods of time).

What kind of evidence should one expect to find from such a model? The
Laws of Thermodynamics are an obvious conclusion, and fit well within
the model. The large and *systematic* gaps between kinds of plants and
animals also is predicted by the model. Life should arise only from
life; new kinds should not be appearing. Rock formations should be
similar throughout what are call geologic "ages." The fossil record
should have systematic gaps. Mutations should by and large be harmful
rather than beneficial.

A model can also be tested by what it allows, i.e., what fits within its
range and does not have to be "explained." Some example of this for the
creation model are: fossil structures could extend through several
sedimentary layers; strata would not have to appear in a particular
order; the earth could be fairly young; "living fossils" indicating a
fixity of kinds.

Creation *does* stand on its own scientific merits. The evidence is
there. The only difficulty is in accepting a supernatural model, which
can occur only when the naturalistic model fails - which the evolution
model has.
-- 
		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.

gino@voder.UUCP (Gino Bloch) (08/28/84)

    >> What has been done is that a *model* to explain the evidence has been
    >> set forth, and now a challenging model has also been set forth.
The earlier model is creationism, now challenged by evolutionism.

    >> the two models are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, evidence against
No other models are allowed? All possible explanations are here?  Convince me.

    >> Scientific creation proposes a usable model.
This is what you are trying to prove, isn't it?

    >> The creation model also posits a catastrophic source for geologic
    >> features - "formed rapidly over a short period of time" [Morris, p91] -
    >> rather than uniformitarian (slowly over long periods of time).
Evolution prefers uniformitarian and uniformitarian changes are visible
today.

    >> What kind of evidence should one expect to find from such a model? The
    >> Laws of Thermodynamics are an obvious conclusion, and fit well within
    >> the model. The large and *systematic* gaps between kinds of plants and
    >> animals also is predicted by the model. Life should arise only from
    >> life; new kinds should not be appearing. Rock formations should be
    >> similar throughout what are call geologic "ages." The fossil record
    >> should have systematic gaps. Mutations should by and large be harmful
    >> rather than beneficial.
Thermodynamics fits both (where is mutually exclusive?).  The inter-specific
gaps are not systematic.  Some are large, some very small.  New kinds
(creationists often refuse to say `species') are arising and have
arisen in historic times - often under the guiding hand of man.  The
rock formations are similar, although the older ones are more worn and
crunched.  The gaps in the fossil record are not systematic.  Evolution
certainly allows mutations to be usually harmful (those die).

    >> A model can also be tested by what it allows, i.e., what fits within its
    >> range and does not have to be "explained." Some example of this for the
    >> creation model are: fossil structures could extend through several
    >> sedimentary layers; strata would not have to appear in a particular
    >> order; the earth could be fairly young; "living fossils" indicating a
    >> fixity of kinds.
Nothing in evolution theory requires fossils to be confined to a single
layer - except those species that only live during a short span of
time (and guess how that comes to be known).  The strata do appear in
a particular order; that's how the geological and paleontological time
scales were deduced.  Jumbled strata are caused by (uniformitarian and
catastrophic) geological events and are accompanied by evidence for them.

    >> Creation *does* stand on its own scientific merits. The evidence is
    >> there. The only difficulty is in accepting a supernatural model, which
    >> can occur only when the naturalistic model fails - which the evolution
    >> model has.
Sentence 1: false.  Sentence 2: false.  Sentence three: complicated.  I
certainly have trouble accepting a supernatural model.  As for the `can
only' clause, I bet you meant to say something else.  And as for the
evolutionary model failing, well, when a scientist sees that his ideas
don't quite fit reality, he modifies his ideas.  That is not a failure,
it is part of the tune-up process.  Evolutionary theory is not thought
to be perfect, only correct in outline and many details. Scientists feel
they are still working it out (Darwin is not a god or the son of one).
As an analogy, I note that many of my programs don't work on the first
try, except, of course, for the divinely inspired ones; this doesn't
make me assume that I can't code.  If they didn't get better with
further work, then I'd question my skills.  This is meant as an
illustration of an idea; actual criticism of my programming skill
is not allowed.

There are a couple of lapses into humor above, but don't think I'm not
serious.  I do apologize for my prolixity, but if I get too terse,
misunderstanding increases.

pvp@ihuxl.UUCP (Philip Polli) (08/29/84)

I can't resist. Bickford makes such amazingly misleading statements.

>Origins. How did what is get to be the way it is? Unless there are
>eyewitnesses, there is no scientific "proof" of what occurred. We can
>formulate models, test them against one another, and see what accounts
>for the evidence better, with fewer secondary assumptions.

Eyewitnesses make something scientifically proven?
Fascinating. I guess UFO's must be scientifically proven.
After all, there are all those eyewitnesses! Tell me,
how do scientists handle contradictory eyewitnesses?
Torture via the rack until the liar confesses?

>Too many assume evolution is *proven*. Forget it - that evolution has
>occurred as evolutionists would like us to believe *cannot* be
>*scientifically* proven. Neither can creation.

Well, I guess that if eyewitnesses are required, he's right.
Of course, I wonder if I could prove that Bickford exists?
Any eyewitnesses out there?
I wonder if the theory of relativity has been proven.
Anybody out there ever seen a relativity?

>What has been done is that a *model* to explain the evidence has been
>set forth, and now a challenging model has also been set forth. What are
>they? Basically:
>	NATURALISM: the features that are present have arisen wholly
>		from present laws and processes;
>	SUPERNATURALISM: present laws and processes are inadequate to
>		explain current features; therefore, supernatural
>		intervention must have occurred.

Another highly misleading statement.
He fails to make a distinction between the actual laws and processes
of the universe, and our understanding of them.
Newtons laws explained much, but not everything.
Einsteins theory of relativity explains much more, but no one
claims that it explains everything. Our understanding
of the laws and processes of the universe is certainly incomplete.
You cannot conclude from this that the actual laws and
processes of the universe are incomplete,
and that it requires supernatural intervention to make it work.

>According to the ideas of many, "science" cannot allow for supernatural
>intervention. (Indeed, if there were whimsical supernatural
>intervention, scientists should probably pack up and find other jobs.)
>However, if a naturalistic model requires secondary assumptions that
>are either numerous or improbable, a supernatural model should be
>considered if it is *scientifically usable as a model*.

Would somebody care to expand upon how many assumptions are too many?
How does one measure the improbability of an assumption?
Of course, we'll have to apply the same measurement to the supernaturalism
model. 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.
How much supernatural intervention do we get to allow?
Just enough to explain away all the evidence, right?

>Further, since
>the two models are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, evidence against
>the naturalistic model compels consideration of the supernatural one.

Really? It was obvious that creationists assumed this, but I've
never seen it explicitly stated before. Anybody who believes this
just isn't thinking.

Exclusive? What if I formulate a theory that God exists, and created
the universe by causing the cosmic egg ( that from which the big bang
occurred ) to come into existence? And that everything that's occurred
since then has followed natural laws ( including evolution ).

Exhaustive? How about my theory that God created us 2000 years ago,
but the devil planted all those fossils just to confuse us.
If one supernatural agent ( God ) is allowed, what's
wrong with another ( the Devil )? 

>Evolution presents itself as the naturalistic model. Time, influx of
>energy from the sun, natural selection, and other things are seen as
>enabling this to occur. But the evolutionary model has a multitude of
>secondary assumptions - things that the model does not *predict*, and
>thus must be *explained* - and many of these tend toward the improbable.

He's right, you know. Evolution and science don't explain everything.
Scientists are all frauds and charlatans. They don't know everything.

>Can a supernatural explanation provide a simpler solution: more
>predictability and fewer secondary assumptions? The idea "It was all
>formed ten seconds ago just as it is" does not qualify as a scientific
>model, for it gives no value for predicting the kind of evidence we
>should expect to find. If the intervention is not orderly, the model
>becomes useless.

Would somebody care to explain why
"God created it all X years ago using special laws and processes"
is more orderly than 
"God created it all X seconds ago using special laws and processes"?
Why must supernatural intervention be "orderly"? Was the great flood
"orderly"?

>Scientific creation proposes a usable model. (I have yet to see or hear
>of any other supernatural *scientific models*.) Its concept of the
>supernatural activity is:
>	"...a period of special creation in the beginning, during which
>	all the basic laws and categories of nature, including the major
>	kinds of plants and animals,

I would love to see a succint, testable
definition of "major kinds of plants
and animals".

>	 as well as man, were brought into
>	existence by special creative and integrative processes which
>	are no longer in operation.
>	"Once the creation was finished, these processes of creation were
>	replaced by processes of conservation, which were designed by the
>	creator to sustain and maintain the basic systems he had made.
>	"...a basic principle of disintegration now at work in nature."

Am I the only one who doesn't understand how "processes of conservation"
which "sustain and maintain the basic systems" imply thermodynamics?
What is the "basic principle of disintegration" referred to?
What does it have to do with conservation? 
Did this make any sense in the original version?

>		Morris, _Scientific Creationism_, p12
>
>The creation model also posits a catastrophic source for geologic
>features - "formed rapidly over a short period of time" [Morris, p91] -
>rather than uniformitarian (slowly over long periods of time).
>What kind of evidence should one expect to find from such a model? The
>Laws of Thermodynamics are an obvious conclusion, and fit well within
>the model.

Let's see if I got this right. God created the universe using a special
set of laws. Then he changed the laws to the current ones that we find.
When we look, we find the current laws. The prediction of the model
is verified! Isn't this all wonderfully scientific?

>The large and *systematic* gaps between kinds of plants and
>animals also is predicted by the model. Life should arise only from
>life; new kinds should not be appearing.

What wonderful ground for all sorts of rationalization.
You could spend a lifetime grouping species and phyla to make sure
they all come out right. Tell me, did God create mules? As I recall,
a mule is the (usually) sterile offspring of a horse and an ass.
Is it a new kind of life? Remember that a mule recently gave birth
to a another mule! 

> Rock formations should be
>similar throughout what are call geologic "ages." The fossil record
>should have systematic gaps. Mutations should by and large be harmful
>rather than beneficial.

These are predictions?
Q. "Does your theory predict that mutations are good or bad?"

Universe A:
A. "Well, let's see. God wouldn't want anything changing
    once he was finished, so he would make sure that mutations
    would be harmful. "

Universe B:
A. "Well, let's see. God would want to make sure that all different
    kinds of life would flourish, so he would make sure that
    mutations would be beneficial."

>A model can also be tested by what it allows, i.e., what fits within its
>range and does not have to be "explained." Some example of this for the
>creation model are: fossil structures could extend through several
>sedimentary layers; strata would not have to appear in a particular
>order;

This is of course a much simpler explanation than the geologists have,
which is that the earth gets shaken up by earthquakes and things
get messed up. Creationists don't have to worry about their evidence being
messed up by natural processes. They can explain anything.
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.

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?

> the earth could be fairly young; "living fossils" indicating a
>fixity of kinds.

Unfortunately, the evidence shows that the earth is fairly old.
And there are a lot of animals that were around back then,
but aren't now. And vice versa. But I forgot -- the dinosaurs
were coexistant with man, weren't they?
They just couldn't run fast enough to escape the worldwide flood.

>Creation *does* stand on its own scientific merits. The evidence is
>there. The only difficulty is in accepting a supernatural model, which
>can occur only when the naturalistic model fails - which the evolution
>model has.

The evolution model has failed? Scientists do not consider a model
to have failed simply because it doesn't explain everything.
Newtons laws were not a failure, even though they were incomplete.
Scientists understand the limitations of the models they use, and the
gaps in their understanding of the universe. The laws and processes
currently formulated by science are certainly incomplete.
Thats why scientists are still busy. But just because our current
understanding of the universe is incomplete, we don't have to
appeal to supernaturalism to fill in the gaps.
There is no evidence to indicate that the universe itself is incomplete,
and requires supernatural assistance to make it work.
That is why creationism is not accepted, even though it may "explain"
some things that we currently don't understand.

	Phil Polli
	{ihnp4!}ihuxl!pvp
		

wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (09/13/84)

>  According to the ideas of many, "science" cannot allow for supernatural
>  intervention. (Indeed, if there were whimsical supernatural
>  intervention, scientists should probably pack up and find other jobs.)

Then how come scientists, engineers, and the entire technical community
have not only accepted but codified and truly believe in supernatural
influence on their work? I refer here, of course, to "Murphy's Law".
We all know what it is, that it is definitely true, and that we are
all subject to it. All the jokes and humorous corollaries are merely
our way of safely treating a basic and profund truth, which would
drive us to despair if we treated it seriously -- that all matter and
objects are actually at odds with the human mind and its desires.
This is probably as good a definition of "evil" as anything ever was.