Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site uiucdcsb.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcsb!miller From: miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: a creationist returns to the net - (nf) Message-ID: <32500001@uiucdcsb.UUCP> Date: Fri, 14-Sep-84 00:55:00 EDT Article-I.D.: uiucdcsb.32500001 Posted: Fri Sep 14 00:55:00 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 13-Sep-84 07:38:17 EDT Lines: 75 Nf-ID: #N:uiucdcsb:32500001:000:5029 Nf-From: uiucdcsb!miller Sep 7 23:55:00 1984 #N:uiucdcsb:32500001:000:5029 uiucdcsb!miller Sep 7 23:55:00 1984 After not posting any creationist articles on the net for several months (I was finishing my MS thesis) I have returned. I saved all of the notes over the summer in hopes I would respond or tie up some loose ends from the previous discussions I was in on, but alas, it got much too thick. We'll see how it goes in the future. I may still get back to some of the more important ones. I'll start this time by responding to Phil Polli. A lot of his note was simple sarcasm and thus can be ignored. But he does ask some good questions. >Well, I guess that if eyewitnesses are required, he's right. The point Larry Bickford was trying to make was that strictly speaking, science must be *repeatable* so that it can be *testable*. No one was around for the origin of the earth. No one was around for the origin of life on this planet. Thus, creation and evolution are in the same boat. Whatever happened occurred in the past and thus falls outside the scientific method. That is not to say science cannot investigate the matter. Model, and not proof, is a better word for the study of the question of origins. >It was obvious that creationists assumed this, [evidence against one model is >evidence for the other] but I've never seen it explicitly stated before. Obviously then, you haven't read any creationist material at all. The reason this is true is that either: naturalistic laws are sufficient to explain all we can see and measure are they aren't; all of life developed from a single source or it didn't; random processes acting on organic matter are sufficient to add the amount of information contained in the DNA program of the human body or they aren't; the fossil record paints a picture of an upward growing tree or it doesn't; etc. etc. etc. >I would love to see a succinct, testable definition of "major kinds of plants >and animals". I would love to see a succinct, testable definition of "species". Actually, both creationists and evolutionist are about at the same level of exactness for now. Both rely on reproductive characteristics, common traits, etc. Creation- ists would currently say something like kinds being a group of organisms with a common ancestral gene pool. A current area of research for geneticists who are creationists is to be able to determine plant/animal kind boundaries simply by studying the DNA. No doubt evolutionists will welcome this advance too for species study if it is successful. See "What is Creation Science?" for more on the relationship of species and kinds. >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? I did just that on the net about 9 months ago, in the area of maximum varia- bility. Are you willing to do the same? If evolution is to qualify as a science, you must be able to propose tests which will *falsify* it. Can you think of any? Will you post any to the net? Are you willing to bet your faith? I should mention the speed of light controversy too. Dr. Setterfield does raise some interesting points, e.g., that some calculated values for c were higher in the past. They were higher than experimental error should account for, even using the technology of the time. Furthermore, one of the measurements came from a Nobel Prize winner in physics. Nevertheless, frankly I think he's wrong. Although I don't want to exclude any area of interesting research, I do think Dr. Setterfield has drawn too much of a conclusion from too little data. Many leading creationists in the physics field also feel this way, e.g., Drs. Barnes and Gentry also think he's wrong. I urge all creation- ists *not* to cite his work, at least for now. Unfortunately, as Lew pointed out, some creationists like Dr. Brown have jumped the gun on this one. Sigh. gino@voder (sorry, you didn't sign your name) raises an issue I keep hearing over and over. He writes: >Of course, such arguments can't override faith - God could have [done >something - see below] for some reason (I've heard Christians say "to test >our faith"). where [done something] is usually placing fossils but in this case is amino acids on meteors. Well, I've heard lots of evolutionists saying that creation- ists say that, but I've never heard or read creationists actually saying it. On the contrary, it is precisely *because* of the scientific data that I'm a creationist. I'm GLAD the fossil record is the way that it is. Some of you already know via personal mail that I used to be a theistic evolutionist. Upon hearing: 1) alternative, but valid, explanations for well known data and 2) data that is somehow, um, er, not covered in classrooms dominated by evolu- tionists, I was forced by compelling evidence to change my religious interpre- tation of Genesis. So no, I no longer have a "test" of my faith when I look at the record of paleontology, geology, biology, etc. It simply confirms it. A. Ray Miller Univ Illinois