rcd@opus.UUCP (08/31/84)
Larry Bickford has tried to give us some insights into "scientific creationism". There are some major problems with what he wrote (though I should at least recognize that he made some attempt to address the issue). Here are the main difficulties: >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. >... >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*. Wrong on two counts. First, if A naturalistic model requires problematic assumptions, ANOTHER naturalistic model should be sought. Second, a supernatural model is ultimately non-scientific. (Please note my word "non-scientific". I mean only that it lies outside the bounds of what we call science.) If the model somehow abrogates known (present) laws and processes, it has neither explanatory power (for new evidence from the past) nor predictive power (for the future) - both of which are central to science. >Further, since >the two models are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, evidence against >the naturalistic model compels consideration of the supernatural one. To reiterate, NO. Evidence against ONE naturalistic model compels consideration of others. >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. Thus far, this might be regarded as a (perhaps unusual) statement of some event analogous to the singularity at the "big bang" point in some scientific theories...but then: > "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." Now we have trouble right here in River City. That's Trouble with a capital T and that rhymes with G and that stands for God. The creator doing the designing--the supernatural entity behind the whole supernatural model--is nothing more or less than a god, and so what we've got is (once again) nothing more or less than religious creationism, which replaces scientific principles with its god in order to make things work. >... >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. This particular point is completely off the wall. "Laws of Thermodynamics" are NOT evidence. It's just all backwards. "Laws" (postulates) are part of the MODEL, not part of the EVIDENCE. >A model can also be tested by what it allows, i.e., what fits within its >range and does not have to be "explained." Wrong. If that were the case, a perfectly good model is "Little green men came swooping in from the far places and made everything as it is." This fits the criterion magnificently, since everything IS as it is (isn't it?:-) Nothing has to be "explained". But I suspect what Larry is getting at here is that "scientific theories" have this obnoxious habit of being not quite right at first (or perhaps ever), so they are constantly in need of modification--i.e., things have to be "explained". If a model doesn't need correction, then unless it's perfectly predictive (as none are) it's not a scientific model. >Creation *does* stand on its own scientific merits. The evidence is >there. This begs the question. No science or scientific merits have been presented for creationism. No evidence has been presented for creationism. >The only difficulty is in accepting a supernatural model, which >can occur only when the naturalistic model fails - which the evolution >model has. This is a magnificent sentence, containing three major misconceptions. Correcting them in reverse order: The evolution model has not failed. There is more than one naturalistic model possible. A supernatural model is not a model (in any scientific sense). -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...I'm not cynical - just experienced.