rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) (01/13/89)
The problem with Creationism as a science, is that you can't really use it to make a prediction (which you CAN do with Darwinism, it might not be correct, but that goes into the definition of a theory). Why can't you make any kind of predictions with Creationism? Well, mainly because it deals with God, therefore you could only make predictions if you could understand God. After all, if he just decided to create the universe, well he could decide to revise/eliminate at any time. On the side of evolution, it makes predictions, like: Natural selection will cause animals that are not suited to their environments to die out, while thoses that are suited will survive and reproduce. To simplify things my HS taught both, and let the students decide which they though was correct. / Rick Golembiewski rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu \ \ #include stddisclaim.h /
kanov@bimacs.BITNET (Mechael Kanovsky) (01/17/89)
In article <sXnAyBy00W0LI1xVpf@andrew.cmu.edu> rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes: >The problem with Creationism as a science, is that you can't really use it to >make a prediction (which you CAN do with Darwinism, it might not be correct, >but that goes into the definition of a theory). Why can't you make any kind >of predictions with Creationism? Well, mainly because it deals with God, What if we say that first g-d created the universe (creatism) and then he let nature i.e. darwinism take over or in other words he also craeted the rules that govern the universe and upon those rules we could make predictions. -- Mechael Kanovsky : BITNET kanov@bimacs.bitnet Math & CS Dept. : UUCP uunet!mcvax!humus!bimacs!kanov Bar-Ilan University : ARPA kanov%bimacs.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu Ramat-Gan Israel : CSNET kanov%bimacs.bitnet%cunyvm.cuny.edu@csnet-relay ! You can't propel yourself forward ! ! by patting yourself on the back !
ogil@tank.uchicago.edu (Brian W. Ogilvie) (01/19/89)
In article <761@bimacs.BITNET> kanov@bimacs.UUCP (Mechael Kanovsky) writes: >What if we say that first g-d created the universe (creatism) and then >he let nature i.e. darwinism take over or in other words he also >craeted the rules that govern the universe and upon those rules we >could make predictions. > >Mechael Kanovsky This is not the "Creation Science" that is being discussed. Creation Science holds that animal and plant species were created individually by God and cannot change beyond a fixed limit of variability. Louis Agassiz, who died in the latter half of the Nineteenth Century, was the last important biologist to hold this view. The position you have sketched is not incompatible with evolution, and in fact is held by many biologists. It is compatible with the belief in a personal God (held by Asa Gray among others) and with an impersonal Deism. Depending on which scholar you ask, Darwin was a Deist. I certainly believe he was for a while, though religious questions dwindled in importance to him as he grew older. -- Brian W. Ogilvie / ogil@tank.uchicago.edu "Cartesianism is the most popular 'popular science' ever invented." --Noel Swerdlow
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (01/19/89)
In article <sXnAyBy00W0LI1xVpf@andrew.cmu.edu> rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes: > >The problem with Creationism as a science, is that you can't really use it to > >make a prediction (which you CAN do with Darwinism, it might not be correct, > >but that goes into the definition of a theory). Why can't you make any kind > >of predictions with Creationism? Well, mainly because it deals with God, In article <761@bimacs.BITNET>, kanov@bimacs.BITNET (Mechael Kanovsky) writes: > What if we say that first g-d created the universe (creatism) and then > he let nature i.e. darwinism take over or in other words he also > craeted the rules that govern the universe and upon those rules we > could make predictions. Unless you demonstrate that god had to decree precisely the laws that your theory contains, the claims about god laying down the rules are just "metaphysical" baggage. One might as well append to Maxwell's equations a story of the invisible elves that cause the electromagnetic field to behave as Maxwell's equations predict. The problem in both cases is that only the "physical" part of the theory is involved in making predictions, and so it is the only part of the theory that is tested by observation. Both elves and gods are useless in this regard. The elves and gods would be just as happy involved with some other theory, and so the success or failure of the theory is irrelevant to claims about them. The separation between physical theory (whose predictions are tested against observation) and metaphysical baggage is not always so clear. The different schools of physicists have long argued over the meaning of quantum mechanics, and over which claims are part of the theory and which are not. Some try to step aside from the battle by claiming that it is clear how to calculate predictions from QM, regardless of which interpretation one chooses, and that this is all that matters. Others disagree: David Deutsch describes experiments that would distinguish the many-worlds interpretation from the standard interpretation. Russell
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (01/19/89)
Rule number one: thou shall not utter "creationism" or "evolution"
in sci.bio. This is almost as great an evil as uttering "abortion" in
soc.women or "VMS" in comp.unix.wizards :-). Without commenting on the
relative merits of the two concepts, this is most definately the wrong
place to discuss them. Try talk.origins if you're into that sort of thing.
--
Roy Smith, System Administrator
Public Health Research Institute
{allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers}!phri!roy -or- phri!roy@uunet.uu.net
"The connector is the network"