Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uicsl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!rmooney
From: rmooney@uicsl.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: SOR pamphlet #1
Message-ID: <27700006@uicsl.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 27-Oct-84 18:34:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uicsl.27700006
Posted: Sat Oct 27 18:34:00 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Oct-84 07:47:38 EST
References: <32500006@uiucdcsb.UUCP>
Lines: 48
Nf-ID: #R:uiucdcsb:32500006:uicsl:27700006:000:2705
Nf-From: uicsl!rmooney    Oct 27 12:34:00 1984

>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.
...
>     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.

   Many sciences cannot make direct use of a "scientific method" which 
requires being able to directly manipulate or observe the entity under
study.  In astronomy, vast distances and scale prohibit direct experimentation
and in human physiology and psychology, ethical reasons prevent such
manipulation.  When astronomers view a distant galaxy it is just as much
in the past as the origin of life.  In many areas scientists must be
content with just observing what evidence nature has to offer since
they are unable to perform controlled experiments.  To outlaw such
terms as "theories" in such areas is to be very naive about the 
"nature of science."  Perhaps someone who has such a logical positivist
view of science should take the time to read Kuhn.

   If anything, such terms as "fact" and "proof" if interpreted strictly
should be outlawed from *all* science, since no theory based on empirical
evidence can be asserted to be "eternal truth" and not subject to change.
This is an obvious result of the use of inductive logic.
I therefore find the introduction of such obfuscatory terminology as
"model" to be unnecessary and evasive.

   However, despite mine and others continuous raising of the importance
of "Occam's Razor" with regard to the nature of scientific explanations,
A. Ray and creationists in general have insisted on concentrating on
technical details and ignored the forest while studying the trees.
Even in his discussion on the "Nature of Science" A. Ray still fails
to address this issue.  I am still waiting for a creationist to 
address the problem of their complicated ontology and answer the
question "Who created the Creator and where is he/she?"

       Ray Mooney
       ..ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!rmooney
       University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign