Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdaisy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watdaisy!gawilson
From: gawilson@watdaisy.UUCP (Graham Wilson)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Why Creation?
Message-ID: <7187@watdaisy.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Apr-85 14:04:28 EST
Article-I.D.: watdaisy.7187
Posted: Tue Apr  9 14:04:28 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 10-Apr-85 04:05:44 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 77


Dear Mr. Sorenson:


      I found your posting to net.origins (Why Creation?) to be very
interesting, and it is nice to see someone clearly explain their views.  But
there are several concepts that I wish to discuss with you.

      First of all, your comment that there "...exists zero evidence that
spontaneous generation is possible..." is wrong.  Scientists have long had
ideas of what the conditions must have been like 4.3 billion years ago, and
as such, attempt to reduplicate these conditions in the laboratory (lack of
oxygen, lots of methane, ammonia, water vapour and elementary gases; no
ozone shield, so there was large amounts of energy from ultraviolet light).
Stanley Miller and Harold Urey conducted such an experiment in 1951 (and it
has been repeated countless times since), an enormous variety of organic
molecules are formed spontaneously including sugars, amino acids, and the
nucleotide bases for DNA.  Note that the formation of such chemicals, which
are the building blocks (so to speak) of life, was shown to be almost
inevitable.  Admittedly, they have not gotten any actual life to form (life
defined as a macromolecule which can reduplictae itself - i.e. the phage
X174 which is only 5375 units (nucleotides) long), but they have come very
close (note that the formation of life according to evolutionary/geological
theory took several hundred million years).  So you should be careful when
you say that there is absolutely no evidence for the spontaneous formation
of life.

      Another gripe is that you and other creationists dont really
understand the constraints of science.  One of the major aspects of a
scientific theory is that it be "falsifiable".  That is, a good theory
doesn't merely explain everything; it specifically predicts that certain
observations, if made, would prove the theory wrong.  It is this aspect that
keeps astrology out of the realm of science.  If a theory or concept cannot
be disproven (i.e. that evil spirits cause disease and just make it look
like germs), then it is not science!

      Obviously, the study of God (etc.) is not in the realm of science,
because the existance of God is neither provable nor disprovable (the bottom
line is faith).  Consequently, any theory that makes use of an omnipotent
supreme being cannot be considered science, because it fails to be 
falsifiable.  

      If the falsifiability constraint was removed from science, then
science would be a crock.  Every man and his dog whould submit theories on
the origin of man and the universe which referred to the supernatural for
support to explain everything (I could invent 10 a day if you wish), and
hence could not be disproved.  There would not be enough time in the day to
give "equal time" to all theories (do you want your children being taught
that astrology is a valid scientific theorem simply because it cannot be
disproved?).

      I hope you see the point Lief.  Evoluton on the otherhand, is
disprovable (it is just that the evidence to disprove it has not been
found).  It does not presuppose the existance or non-existance of anything
supernatural, because such factors do not affect what the theory predicts.

      All of my information was taken from the book "Science on Trial (The
Case for Evolution)" by Douglas J. Futuyma.  It is published by Pantheon
Books in New York.  It is a very well written book for the layman in biology
(i.e. me - I'm a programmer, not a biologist), who would like to know what
is the evidence for evolution.  It also contains a very good essay on the
definition of science (from which I drew most of my information). I strongly
suggest that you read it Lief, it could help clarify some of your views
(this is meant to be friendly - not sarcastic).

      One final point, I hope the information here showed why "creationism"
is not science (again, refer to the above mentioned publication for a more
detailed discussion).  Consequently, if it was taught in schools as science,
it would be nothing more than bringing religion into the classroom.
Americans criticize the Iranians for their fanaticism and the connection
between chuch and state.  It the U.S. starts teaching religion in the
school, where's the difference?

Graham Wilson
University of Waterloo

-- note the lack of anti-religious quotes from L.L. --