Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1.chuqui 4/7/84; site voder.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!qubix!ios!apple!voder!gino
From: gino@voder.UUCP (Gino Bloch)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Let's have scientific evolutionism too
Message-ID: <329@voder.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 27-Aug-84 18:07:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: voder.329
Posted: Mon Aug 27 18:07:56 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 30-Aug-84 11:09:45 EDT
References: <3388@cbscc.UUCP> <7518@unc.UUCP> <697@opus.UUCP> <1339@qubix.UUCP>
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara
Lines: 68


    >> 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.
The earlier model is creationism, now challenged by evolutionism.

    >> the two models are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, evidence against
No other models are allowed? All possible explanations are here?  Convince me.

    >> Scientific creation proposes a usable model.
This is what you are trying to prove, isn't it?

    >> 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).
Evolution prefers uniformitarian and uniformitarian changes are visible
today.

    >> 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. 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. 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.
Thermodynamics fits both (where is mutually exclusive?).  The inter-specific
gaps are not systematic.  Some are large, some very small.  New kinds
(creationists often refuse to say `species') are arising and have
arisen in historic times - often under the guiding hand of man.  The
rock formations are similar, although the older ones are more worn and
crunched.  The gaps in the fossil record are not systematic.  Evolution
certainly allows mutations to be usually harmful (those die).

    >> 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; the earth could be fairly young; "living fossils" indicating a
    >> fixity of kinds.
Nothing in evolution theory requires fossils to be confined to a single
layer - except those species that only live during a short span of
time (and guess how that comes to be known).  The strata do appear in
a particular order; that's how the geological and paleontological time
scales were deduced.  Jumbled strata are caused by (uniformitarian and
catastrophic) geological events and are accompanied by evidence for them.

    >> 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.
Sentence 1: false.  Sentence 2: false.  Sentence three: complicated.  I
certainly have trouble accepting a supernatural model.  As for the `can
only' clause, I bet you meant to say something else.  And as for the
evolutionary model failing, well, when a scientist sees that his ideas
don't quite fit reality, he modifies his ideas.  That is not a failure,
it is part of the tune-up process.  Evolutionary theory is not thought
to be perfect, only correct in outline and many details. Scientists feel
they are still working it out (Darwin is not a god or the son of one).
As an analogy, I note that many of my programs don't work on the first
try, except, of course, for the divinely inspired ones; this doesn't
make me assume that I can't code.  If they didn't get better with
further work, then I'd question my skills.  This is meant as an
illustration of an idea; actual criticism of my programming skill
is not allowed.

There are a couple of lapses into humor above, but don't think I'm not
serious.  I do apologize for my prolixity, but if I get too terse,
misunderstanding increases.