Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site qubix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!qubix!lab
From: lab@qubix.UUCP (Larry Bickford)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.physics
Subject: Creation vs. Evolution
Message-ID: <679@qubix.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Dec-83 02:03:23 EST
Article-I.D.: qubix.679
Posted: Thu Dec  8 02:03:23 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Dec-83 02:53:33 EST
Organization: Qubix Graphic Systems, Saratoga, CA
Lines: 77

(Due to length of article, I won't try to fit everything in here. May it
be a springboard for rational discussion that shall find its home in a
single newsgroup.)
Perhaps it would be best to start if we could define the areas under
discussion, as models for correlating (and even predicting) existing
data. If our understandings differ here, further discussion is hot air
on both sides. (Flame now or hold your peace.)

Recall that we are dealing with *scientific* models, that meet their
test in hard evidence, not with *religious* models.

Note here to distinguish "micro-evolution" (variations with kinds, known
to exist) from "macro-evolution" (change from kind to kind, purely
speculative). Too many point to micro-evolution to justify macro-evolution.
When the term "evolution" is used, "macro-evolution" is intended.

The evolutionary model ("Evolution") "attempts to explain the origin,
development, and meaning of all things in terms of natural laws and
processes which operate today as they have in the past. No extraneous
processes, requiring the special activity of an external agent, or
Creator, are permitted. The universe, in all its aspects, evolves itself
into higher levels of order (particles to people) by means of its innate
properties." (H.M.Morris, "Scientific Creationism," p.10)

"The creation model ("Creation") postulates 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 created. In addition, ... the creation
model proposes a basic principle of disintegration now at work in nature
(since any change in a *perfect* primeval creation must be in the
direction of imperfection). Also ... [it includes] post-creation global
catastrophism." (Morris, op.cit., p.12)

I have noted to my correspondents one of the bases upon which evolution
rests, namely the doctrine of UNIFORMITARIANISM:
	"...the Scottish geologist, James Hutton, ... maintained that
	*the present is the key to the past* and that, given sufficient
	time, processes now at work could account for all the geologic
	features of the Globe. This philosophy, which came to be known
	as the doctrine of UNIFORMITARIANISM, demands an immensity of
	time ..."
		(Carl O. Dunbar, "Historical Geology" 2nd Ed. 1960, p18,
		cited in Morris, op. cit., p.92)

The alternative idea is CATASTROPHISM, theorizing that the features of
the earth were formed rapidly in a relatively short period of time. The
predominant thought on the catastrophe is a world-wide flood, hence the
term "Flood Geology" is used by both proponents and opponents.

One of my correspondents (who does not share my views on origins) wrote:
   "One of the many goals of science is to obtain a consistent
   understanding of the physical and biological worlds while
   avoiding any unnecessary assumptions."

I agree. Test both models, and see which needs fewer "explanations"
(i.e., secondary assumptions). Where shall we start?

	The Second Law of Thermodynamics
	Eyes and Wings (multiple independent evolutions)
	Gaps in the Taxonomic Tree (there shouldn't be any at any level)
	Living fossils (tuatara, coelacanth, etc.)
	Preservation of soft-tissue forms in fossils
	Fossils, period.
	"Overthrusts"
	Chromosome count in plants and animals
	...

This article is long enough, and I hope sufficient to (as the above-
noted correspondent put it) "generate light instead of heat."

Larry Bickford,			{amd70,ittvax}!qubix!lab
		  {ihnp4,ucbvax,decvax}!decwrl!qubix!lab
		  decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA