Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site hou5d.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!hou5h!hou5a!hou5d!mat
From: mat@hou5d.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Creation Pseudo Science at work?
Message-ID: <709@hou5d.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Oct-83 09:06:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: hou5d.709
Posted: Thu Oct 20 09:06:25 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 21-Oct-83 06:55:40 EDT
References: <526@pyuxqq.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 57


	There is no way any scientific experiment could tell the difference
	between a world 4 billion years old and a world that was deliberately
	created to APPEAR 4 billion years old, including the creation of
	light already on its way from far off galaxies.

But ``Creation Science'' ISN'T making this claim -- they are making the
claim that ``proper interpretation'' of the evidence of our world will
tell us that it is less than 4000 years old.  And the difference is a
big one.  For example, one claim is that the earth was originally
surrounded by a giant cloud of water, with the oceans almost dry.
The cloud blocked radiation, explaining the long lifespans of Methululah,
Abraham, etc.  When God grew angry at man, the claim goes, He caused
this cloud to collapse, producing the Flood. This also ``explains'' why
the rainbow was a new phenomena (``a sign that never again shall I cause
the waters to ravage the earth'' or something like that) and why
shortened lifespans are the rule ...  It doesn't explain several
million years of marine fossils, though.

And this is the problem.  I have no problem believing that the world was
created in AD 1338 in a supernatural way to LOOK as though it was older ...
what I don't believe is someone telling me ``it ISN'T older, so find new
evidence or re-interpret what you've got in any way you have to''.  This
is lying for the sake of religion.  Is that serving God?  As Chesterton said

	``I can believe the impossible, but not the improbable.  Look here,
	if you tell me that Mr Gladstone, in his last hours, was haunted
	by Parnell's ghost, I will be agnostic about it.  But if you tell
	me that when Mr Gladstone was introduced to Queen Victoria he
	slapped her on the back and offered her a cigar, I won't be agnostic.
	I will call you ridiculous.  It doesn't contradict the laws of a
	world I don't know, it contradicts the laws of a world I do.''

That is quoted from memory, (and therefor probably not quite right) from
Chesterton's ``The Curse of the Golden Cross''.  If anyone cares to find
the exact quote and argue with me, she is welcome to do it.

And I have complaints on religious grounds as well.  Forcing God to resort
to collapsing a cloud to create the flood, changing the earth permanently,
in order to do something offends my notion of God.  If God wants a flood,
there will be a flood, whether or not there is a cloud.  And if God wants
Abraham to live beyond the normal lifespan, then Abraham will.  No cloud
is necessary to explain it.  And please don't tell me that God is limited
by His own creation (unc!tim, keep out of this ...)

Anyone with an interest in this issue (and since we are talking about
teaching this claptrap in public schools, we had better all be concerned)
should read the current Skeptical Inquirer.  The Skeptical Inquirer is
published by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of
the Paranormal (CSICOP) and I will dig up and post their address tonight.


					Mark Terribile
					Spiridellis & Associates, at
					AT&T Informations Systems Laboratories
					Holmdel, NJ
					hou5d!mat