Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihuxl!pvp
From: pvp@ihuxl.UUCP (Philip Polli)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Re: Let's have scientific evolutionism too
Message-ID: <1321@ihuxl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-Aug-84 13:23:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxl.1321
Posted: Wed Aug 29 13:23:16 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 30-Aug-84 01:58:27 EDT
References: <3388@cbscc.UUCP> <7518@unc.UUCP> <697@opus.UUCP> <1339@qubix.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 219

I can't resist. Bickford makes such amazingly misleading statements.

>Origins. How did what is get to be the way it is? Unless there are
>eyewitnesses, there is no scientific "proof" of what occurred. We can
>formulate models, test them against one another, and see what accounts
>for the evidence better, with fewer secondary assumptions.

Eyewitnesses make something scientifically proven?
Fascinating. I guess UFO's must be scientifically proven.
After all, there are all those eyewitnesses! Tell me,
how do scientists handle contradictory eyewitnesses?
Torture via the rack until the liar confesses?

>Too many assume evolution is *proven*. Forget it - that evolution has
>occurred as evolutionists would like us to believe *cannot* be
>*scientifically* proven. Neither can creation.

Well, I guess that if eyewitnesses are required, he's right.
Of course, I wonder if I could prove that Bickford exists?
Any eyewitnesses out there?
I wonder if the theory of relativity has been proven.
Anybody out there ever seen a relativity?

>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.

Another highly misleading statement.
He fails to make a distinction between the actual laws and processes
of the universe, and our understanding of them.
Newtons laws explained much, but not everything.
Einsteins theory of relativity explains much more, but no one
claims that it explains everything. Our understanding
of the laws and processes of the universe is certainly incomplete.
You cannot conclude from this that the actual laws and
processes of the universe are incomplete,
and that it requires supernatural intervention to make it work.

>According to the ideas of many, "science" cannot allow for supernatural
>intervention. (Indeed, if there were whimsical supernatural
>intervention, scientists should probably pack up and find other jobs.)
>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*.

Would somebody care to expand upon how many assumptions are too many?
How does one measure the improbability of an assumption?
Of course, we'll have to apply the same measurement to the supernaturalism
model. How improbable is it that the Creator did it all x years ago?
x+t years ago?
And does creationism really only posit one period of supernatural
intervention? I thought the worldwide flood was caused supernaturally.
How much supernatural intervention do we get to allow?
Just enough to explain away all the evidence, right?

>Further, since
>the two models are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, evidence against
>the naturalistic model compels consideration of the supernatural one.

Really? It was obvious that creationists assumed this, but I've
never seen it explicitly stated before. Anybody who believes this
just isn't thinking.

Exclusive? What if I formulate a theory that God exists, and created
the universe by causing the cosmic egg ( that from which the big bang
occurred ) to come into existence? And that everything that's occurred
since then has followed natural laws ( including evolution ).

Exhaustive? How about my theory that God created us 2000 years ago,
but the devil planted all those fossils just to confuse us.
If one supernatural agent ( God ) is allowed, what's
wrong with another ( the Devil )? 

>Evolution presents itself as the naturalistic model. Time, influx of
>energy from the sun, natural selection, and other things are seen as
>enabling this to occur. But the evolutionary model has a multitude of
>secondary assumptions - things that the model does not *predict*, and
>thus must be *explained* - and many of these tend toward the improbable.

He's right, you know. Evolution and science don't explain everything.
Scientists are all frauds and charlatans. They don't know everything.

>Can a supernatural explanation provide a simpler solution: more
>predictability and fewer secondary assumptions? The idea "It was all
>formed ten seconds ago just as it is" does not qualify as a scientific
>model, for it gives no value for predicting the kind of evidence we
>should expect to find. If the intervention is not orderly, the model
>becomes useless.

Would somebody care to explain why
"God created it all X years ago using special laws and processes"
is more orderly than 
"God created it all X seconds ago using special laws and processes"?
Why must supernatural intervention be "orderly"? Was the great flood
"orderly"?

>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,

I would love to see a succint, testable
definition of "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 made.
>	"...a basic principle of disintegration now at work in nature."

Am I the only one who doesn't understand how "processes of conservation"
which "sustain and maintain the basic systems" imply thermodynamics?
What is the "basic principle of disintegration" referred to?
What does it have to do with conservation? 
Did this make any sense in the original version?

>		Morris, _Scientific Creationism_, p12
>
>The creation model also posits a catastrophic source for geologic
>features - "formed rapidly over a short period of time" [Morris, p91] -
>rather than uniformitarian (slowly over long periods of time).
>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.

Let's see if I got this right. God created the universe using a special
set of laws. Then he changed the laws to the current ones that we find.
When we look, we find the current laws. The prediction of the model
is verified! Isn't this all wonderfully scientific?

>The large and *systematic* gaps between kinds of plants and
>animals also is predicted by the model. Life should arise only from
>life; new kinds should not be appearing.

What wonderful ground for all sorts of rationalization.
You could spend a lifetime grouping species and phyla to make sure
they all come out right. Tell me, did God create mules? As I recall,
a mule is the (usually) sterile offspring of a horse and an ass.
Is it a new kind of life? Remember that a mule recently gave birth
to a another mule! 

> Rock formations should be
>similar throughout what are call geologic "ages." The fossil record
>should have systematic gaps. Mutations should by and large be harmful
>rather than beneficial.

These are predictions?
Q. "Does your theory predict that mutations are good or bad?"

Universe A:
A. "Well, let's see. God wouldn't want anything changing
    once he was finished, so he would make sure that mutations
    would be harmful. "

Universe B:
A. "Well, let's see. God would want to make sure that all different
    kinds of life would flourish, so he would make sure that
    mutations would be beneficial."

>A model can also be tested by what it allows, i.e., what fits within its
>range and does not have to be "explained." Some example of this for the
>creation model are: fossil structures could extend through several
>sedimentary layers; strata would not have to appear in a particular
>order;

This is of course a much simpler explanation than the geologists have,
which is that the earth gets shaken up by earthquakes and things
get messed up. Creationists don't have to worry about their evidence being
messed up by natural processes. They can explain anything.
By its very nature, the creationist model must be able to explain
any possible observation. If it couldn't, then the believers
would be faced with the prospect of their faith being subject to actual
test.

A challenge to creationists: Predict something new from the theory.
Propose a test which will verify the prediction.
Are any of you willing to bet your faith on the outcome?

> the earth could be fairly young; "living fossils" indicating a
>fixity of kinds.

Unfortunately, the evidence shows that the earth is fairly old.
And there are a lot of animals that were around back then,
but aren't now. And vice versa. But I forgot -- the dinosaurs
were coexistant with man, weren't they?
They just couldn't run fast enough to escape the worldwide flood.

>Creation *does* stand on its own scientific merits. The evidence is
>there. The only difficulty is in accepting a supernatural model, which
>can occur only when the naturalistic model fails - which the evolution
>model has.

The evolution model has failed? Scientists do not consider a model
to have failed simply because it doesn't explain everything.
Newtons laws were not a failure, even though they were incomplete.
Scientists understand the limitations of the models they use, and the
gaps in their understanding of the universe. The laws and processes
currently formulated by science are certainly incomplete.
Thats why scientists are still busy. But just because our current
understanding of the universe is incomplete, we don't have to
appeal to supernaturalism to fill in the gaps.
There is no evidence to indicate that the universe itself is incomplete,
and requires supernatural assistance to make it work.
That is why creationism is not accepted, even though it may "explain"
some things that we currently don't understand.

	Phil Polli
	{ihnp4!}ihuxl!pvp