Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uiucdcsb.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcsb!miller From: miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: SOR pamphlet #1 Message-ID: <32500007@uiucdcsb.UUCP> Date: Fri, 26-Oct-84 18:11:00 EST Article-I.D.: uiucdcsb.32500007 Posted: Fri Oct 26 18:11:00 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 28-Oct-84 06:04:45 EST References: <32500006@uiucdcsb.UUCP> Lines: 130 Nf-ID: #R:uiucdcsb:32500006:uiucdcsb:32500007:000:7427 Nf-From: uiucdcsb!miller Oct 26 17:11:00 1984 ORIGINS No. 1: The Creation/Evolution Debate With the close of the 1925 Scopes Trial, many people thought the creation/evolution debate was over. Yet, recent polls show that at least 86% of the American population would like to see creationism re- turned to the public schools [1]. Despite such overwhelming public support, creationists face severe opposition from their evolutionary colleagues. Professors have been fired, research funding has been cut, papers have been rejected without even being read, and students have been expelled [2,3]. What is it about this issue that generates so much controversy? Why are thousands of scientists today rejecting evolution? What is scientific creationism and how does it differ from evolution? EVOLUTION Evolutionists believe that life originated on the early earth when various elements combined to form primitive, single-celled organ- isms. Over billions of years, mutations (or errors) in the reproduc- tive process occurred. Supposedly, some of these mutations were help- ful, and so the organisms increased in complexity and diversity. All of life as we know it today, including plants, fish, amphibians, rep- tiles, birds, mammals, and humans, are believed to have descended from this simple beginning. The great complexities of life and all that we see can be explained by nothing more than time, chance, and the innate properties of matter. Evolutionists view the order of the fossil record, from bottom to top, as a history of this evolutionary development. Most (but not all) evolutionists believe in the concept of ``uniformitarianism'', i.e., slow, steady, uniform processes are responsible for the forma- tion of the bulk of the geological column and the fossils it contains. CREATION In contrast, creationists feel that when life first appeared, it did so in many forms, all designed by an intelligent Creator. All plants and animals were created structurally complete and reproduced after their own kind. The genetic material within each kind of plant or animal has a certain amount of variability built in. Thus, they can adapt (within limits) to new environments, but will never develop into radically new kinds of organisms. Since the initial creation period, only extinctions have occurred, and no new kinds of plants or animals have developed. For example, dogs could diversify into the large number of breeds we have today, but would never be able to change into some totally different animal, such as a cat or a horse. Creationists view the fossil record, from bottom to top, not as the order in which organisms evolved, but rather as the order in which organisms were buried. It is interesting to note that, by and large, the predicted order is the same for creationists and evolutionists, but for entirely different reasons (more on this in later pamphlets). Most (but not all) creationists believe in the concept of ``catastro- phism'', i.e., catastrophic (primarily hydraulic) processes are responsible for the formation of the bulk of the geological column and the fossils it contains. THE NATURE OF SCIENCE Strictly speaking, the scientific method can only be applied to events which are repeatable, testable, and observable. The study of origins, however, is a study of events which occurred in the past. No scientist was around to observe the origin of life on this planet - whether it occurred through creation or evolution. Harrison Matthews, a British biologist and evolutionist, wrote in his introduction to the 1971 publication of Darwin's _T_h_e _O_r_i_g_i_n _o_f _S_p_e_c_i_e_s that: ``The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the pecu- liar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof'' [4]. Technically then, since the study of origins deals to a large ex- tent with historical events, the word model and not theory or proof is more appropriate when discussing creation and evolution. Both models should be used to correlate and observe data in the fields of geology, paleontology, thermodynamics, biology, genetics, etc. And, as with all competing models, the one which correlates the largest amount of data with the smallest number of unresolved contradictions should be selected as the one most probably correct. Finally, many evolutionists claim that since most creationists believe in the Biblical account of Genesis, creationism is inherently religious and not scientific like evolution. This is wrong for at least two reasons. First, there are many religions which incorporate evolution, rather than creation, as tenets of their faiths [5]. Next, whether or not a belief is scientific does not depend upon which reli- gions do or do not agree with that belief, but upon the type of evi- dence supporting that belief. If a scientist offers scientific evi- dence to support his belief in creation/evolution, then he is dealing with scientific creationism/evolutionism. If, on the other hand, that same person offers theological arguments to support his belief in creation/evolution, then he is dealing with theological creationism/evolutionism. Both can be equally religious, and both can be equally scientific. This series of pamphlets will attempt to provide an introduction into the basis of scientific creationism. Though necessarily brief, it is hoped that the objective reader will begin to see why an in- creasing number of scientists are turning to creationism as the best answer to the question: ``Which model fits the data better?'' REFERENCES [1] Associated Press - NBC News poll, Oct. 25-26, 1981. [2] _C_r_e_a_t_i_o_n _M_a_g_a_z_i_n_e, Creation Science Legal Defense Fund, July 1984, pp. 10-11. [3] _C_r_e_a_t_i_o_n _M_a_g_a_z_i_n_e, Creation Science Legal Defense Fund, Aug. 1984, p. 9. [4] L. Harrison Matthews, ``Introduction,'' _T_h_e _O_r_i_g_i_n _o_f _S_p_e_c_i_e_s, by Charles Darwin (London, J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., 1971), p. x. [5] Henry Morris, _T_h_e _T_r_o_u_b_l_e_d _W_a_t_e_r_s _o_f _E_v_o_l_u_t_i_o_n (San Diego, Master Book Publishers, 1974). For more information on this topic: Henry Morris, _S_c_i_e_n_t_i_f_i_c _C_r_e_a_t_i_o_n_i_s_m (San Diego, Master Book Publish- ers, 1974). Henry Morris and Gary Parker, _W_h_a_t _i_s _C_r_e_a_t_i_o_n _S_c_i_e_n_c_e? (San Diego, Master Book Publishers, 1982). Henry Morris, _H_i_s_t_o_r_y _o_f _M_o_d_e_r_n _C_r_e_a_t_i_o_n_i_s_m (San Diego, Master Book Publishers, 1984). Randy Wysong, _T_h_e _C_r_e_a_t_i_o_n-_E_v_o_l_u_t_i_o_n _C_o_n_t_r_o_v_e_r_s_y (Midland, Michigan, Inquiry Press, 1976). last revision: fall 1984 Students for Origins Research P.O. Box 203 Goleta, CA 93116-0203