Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxq.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!floyd!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihuxq!amigo2 From: amigo2@ihuxq.UUCP Newsgroups: net.misc,net.religion Subject: Re: Can Creationists Contribute to Science? Message-ID: <528@ihuxq.UUCP> Date: Mon, 23-Jan-84 17:38:22 EST Article-I.D.: ihuxq.528 Posted: Mon Jan 23 17:38:22 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 27-Jan-84 06:24:20 EST References: <791@qubix.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 131 Larry Bickford says: >> I am appalled at the cavalier attitude of summarily >> dismissing creationism and its supporters into the >> "pseudo-science" category. I seriously doubt that more than >> a few on this network have even bothered to read any of the >> material published on the *scientific* evidence for >> creation. I have found a few who are willing to consider >> evidence itself, but by far the vast majority who believe in >> evolution have also believed the straw man that >> evolutionists have created from the Genesis account and then >> ridiculed. [One paragraph omitted] >> On the question of "hypotheses be falsifiable from data >> obtained in a reproducible manner and the statement that it >> is permissible to explain some data by divine intervention": >> one of the contributors on this subject and I have exchanged >> on what I refer to as "compact" vs. "continuous" divine >> intervention. I define "compact" to mean that in the >> prehistoric past (think about it - history only goes back >> about 4000-6000 years), there were processes in operation >> that are no longer in operation - creative processes, used >> to cause things to exist. They ceased at a point in time, >> being replaced by (or perhaps leaving) sustaining processes. >> The latter are observable and repeatable; the former are >> neither. Further, since the former are no longer in >> operation, a new phenomena (e.g., my desk suddenly going >> from "creative" [read: chaotic] to tidy) would not be >> explainable by "divine intervention" (save the conclusion >> after repeated observation that no natural process could >> account for it), whereas "continuous" intervention would >> definitely allow such an explanation. >> >> A model based on continuous intervention would be virtually >> impossible to work with. However, one based on compact >> intervention is fully viable, basically stating that the >> world was in a certain condition at a certain point in time, >> and that all has proceeded since then. We can study what is, >> draw conclusions and make prognoses from it. What more does >> science ask? I do not feel that evolutionists have a "cavalier attitude in summarily dismissing creationism and its supporters into the `pseudo-science' category." I, for one, have done extensive reading in the works of Henry Morris, R. L. Wysong, Duane Gish, et al. And I do recognize the principal reasons for the creationists' attitude. Simply put, the core of the theory of scientific creationism is that the word of God has got to be true. Everything in human experience must be explained in such a way that it does not contradict the Bible. Scientific observations are not more privileged than any other sort of experience. If they do not seem to conform, then either they are illusions or else they are erroneously interpreted. If they are erroneously interpreted, it may be because Satan has caused the mistake as part of his strategy to damn mankind forever. The struggle for correct interpretations of human observations, according to many creationists, is no less than the struggle between God and the Devil for the souls of humanity. (See, for example, Morris, "The Troubled Waters of Evolution", pp. 74-75.) I don't know why Larry says "the vast majority who believe in evolution have also believed the straw man that evolutionists have created from the Genesis account and then ridiculed." Most scientific creationists--certainly the most vocal ones--do start off by saying that the Genesis account is a literal and faithful account of origins of the universe, the earth, plants and animals, and people. Remember that, in order to become a member of the Institute for Creation Research, one must sign an oath saying that one believes implicitly and without reservation the literal truth of the Bible. As Henry Morris put it: The real truth of the matter is that the Bible is indeed verbally inspired and literally true throughout. Whenever it deals with scientific or historical matters of fact, it means exactly what it says and is completely accurate. Whenever figures of speech are used, their meaning is always evident in context, just as in other books. There is no scientific fallacy in the Bible at all. "Science" is *knowledge*, and the Bible is a book of true and factual knowledge throughout, on every subject with which it deals. The Bible *is* a book of science. [Italics in original.] --Morris, "Many Infallible Proofs", p. 229. Creationists, in their "scientific" arguments, tend towards double-talk, mis-quotation, mis-representation, and outright fraud. A good example of this is their well-known "evolution defies the second law of thermodynamics" argument. Central to their reasoning is the notion that "uphill" processes cannot occur naturally. First, they have exaggerated the extent to which evolution is an uphill process, and secondly, they misinterpret the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics refers specifically to closed systems, but the earth's bioshere is not a closed system, since it is constantly receiving energy from the sun. Localized entropy reduction occurs all the time in nature. Indeed, it happens every time a snowflake is formed. Despite their remarkably symmetrical and highly organized structures, each snowflake forms spontaniously and naturally from a completely disorganized collection of airborne molecules. Surely the creationists do not mean to argue that since entropy is a universal law, snowflake creation is impossible. To be sure, scientists do not completely understand either the genesis of snowflakes or the evolutionary process, but a declaration that either is impossible does not follow from the second law of thermodynamics. About Larry's thesis of "compact divine intervention", if you have a non-reproducible process, then you can use it to explain almost anything. Indeed, by Occam's Razor (which is what the Spanish Barber uses) alone, divine intervention is the simplest expalnation for any process. Scientific creationism is an evangelical Christian movement of fundamentalist ministries dedicated not to the advancement of science but to the advancemanet of Biblical inerrancy often at the expense of science. The discourse of scientific creationism is an elaborate but confusing system of apologetics and polemics. It is designed to both defend Biblical "truths" and to undermine any scientific facts and theories that contradict creationist interpretations of Scripture. In some cases, Morris and his colleagues use ad hominem polemics to attack evolution, as when Albert Johnson claimed that evolution leads "to sensuality, carnalism, Bolshevism, and the Red Flag"; more often, they resort to obfuscation. John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs Naperville, IL (312) 979-7293 ihnp4!ihuxq!amigo2