lew@ihuxr.UUCP (Lew Mammel, Jr.) (09/02/84)
Let me assure Paul DuBois that I not only considered, but spent undue hours studying and analyzing "The Velocity of Light and The Age of the Universe" by Barry Setterfield. This work was cited by Walter Brown, a local creationism advocate here in Naperville IL, in a talk he gave at Indian Hill Bell Labs at the invitation of the Indian Hill Bible Club. I posted a series of articles to net.religion (this predated net.origins) explaining in gory detail why I judged Setterfield's work to be "scientific bathos". Please note the tentative way that Paul advanced his suggestion that this concept is a victim of evolutionary dogmatism. There is a childrens' game at Show Biz Pizza Place which makes a striking metaphor for this sort of creationist argumentation. A series of large plastic pegs pop up one at a time from an array of holes as the player tries to pound each one in succession with a large mallet, which usually lands harmlessly as its target retreats to cover just ahead of it, even as another pops enticingly into view. I thought I had scored a hit last time around, but I later realized that several prominent net creationists were quietly sitting that one out. On this second time around, I find myself thoroughly disabused of the notion that any creationist argument can be silenced by refutation. Lew Mammel, Jr. ihnp4!ihuxr!lew "As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly" Proverbs 26:11
gjphw@iham1.UUCP (09/04/84)
Allow me to reinforce what L. Mammel (ihuxr!lew) has commented about the futility of refutation with creationists. I have read the same comment made by a paleontologist who has debated with creationists at college seminars (in *Science and Creationism*, edited by Ashley Montagu, 1984). This has been my experience as well. Science, unlike the image of traditional human studies, is adaptive. It is strives toward some goals, but does not claim to have achieved its goals. The self-view of scientists and their craft has also undergone change as the limitations of science have become evident. It is unfortunate that, since the major Greek philosophers, the techniques of mathematics, where the premises or axioms are known, has been treated as the prototype for science, where only the conclusions or deductions can be tested. Given this image, someone who claims to know the axioms has no need to be sensitive to any evidence. Duane Gish, a prominent creationist, has written that in any conflict between the Bible and scientific observations, the Bible must be considered preeminent. While I have made some contributions, Lew has performed the more exhaustive scholarship concerning the argument that the value for the speed of light has changed significantly during historical times. The present discussions indicate that his arguments have been ignored. In the applications of the second law of thermodynamics (my speciality), where thermodynamics is a subject that has developed independently of the evolution question, the efforts of many scientists have been routinely ignored. One might expect that, having been informed about an error in applying thermodynamics, a person would correct his/her later arguments. No such change is evident from the statements of the creationists. And despite all other arguments, creationists consider creation science and evolution to be both mutually exclusive (perhaps) and exhaustive (no other theories or models are possible). As a scientist, I try (and occasionally fail) to be attentive to the arguments and evidence advanced in opposition to my present collection of theories (or world view). 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). It should be obvious that discussions here will not make any progress (except it has motivated me to explore the philosophical foundations of science). -- Patrick Wyant AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL) *!iham1!gjphw