Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site iham1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!iham1!gjphw
From: gjphw@iham1.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Some evidence for creationism.
Message-ID: <201@iham1.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Sep-84 16:00:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: iham1.201
Posted: Tue Sep  4 16:00:17 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Sep-84 03:37:12 EDT
References: <1264@browngr.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 39



   On the issue of human history, allow me to put to all a counter example.

   In 1054, an event occurred.  This event was recorded by Chinese astronomers
 who noted that a new star had suddenly appeared in the heavens, and that this
 star could even be seen during the day.  I also believe that the appearance of
 the supernova aided the downfall of the dynasty in power at that time.

   Despite the prominence of the new star for Chinese court astronomers, there
 is no record of the appearance of any new star in European records at that
 time.  The population of Europe was several million at the time, and granted
 that only a small percentage of the population could read and write (official
 scribes), but no one saw fit to write anything (that has been found yet).

   Which account should we accept?  That of the Chinese astronomers who wrote
 about the new star, or the European astronomers who did not record any new
 stars?  Who was lying (the Chinese through commission or the Europeans through
 omission)?

   The tie breaker in this case comes from the observation by modern
 astronomers of the Crab nebula.  Based upon a model of how a supernova ejects
 matter, and observations of the nebula, the hypothesis that a relatively
 nearby supernova occurred approximately 1000 AD is consistent with the
 Chinese observations.

   This event, too, occurred before mass communication, though Europe did have
 a rudimentary postal system between scholars, kings, and churchmen.  My point
 is, as a scientist, that eyewitnesses are not unbiased, impartial, and without
 prejudice.  While it is certainly simplest to take history on face value, it
 can also be misleading on occasion.  In addition, trial lawyers and magicians
 will attest to the unreliability of eyewitnesses.

-- 

                                    Patrick Wyant
                                    AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL)
                                    *!iham1!gjphw