Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-edu1!hua
From: hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: RE: FUNDAMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR CREATION (?)
Message-ID: <213@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 29-Mar-85 11:21:50 EST
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-e.213
Posted: Fri Mar 29 11:21:50 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 1-Apr-85 03:12:07 EST
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 151

___________________________________________________________________________

> { from: Jake O'sHonesty }
>
> Greetings to me fellow readahs of net.oorigins.  Moy name is Jake
> O'sHonesty and Oy wooed loik to mike a contribution to this 'ere
> discussion between the Evolutionknights and Creationknights.

Greetings, Jake.  For references sake, the rest of your post is
included below.  Jake, you invoke something for evidence that is
not acceptable in science, and since we are dealing with origins
in terms of science, we must limit the perspectives to science.
You say that you can make observations ... that's fine.  There
is no such thing as "cause and effect relationships", and I don't
see how any such thing applies in your evidence, except abstract
levels that does not apply in science.  (ie. subjective things
like love, hate, design, ...)

> What Oy 'ave to sigh is this: when Oy look aroun' me in this 'ere
> world, it DOES NAWT *look* loik it's an awkcident.  On the contr'ry, it
> LOOKS loik it 'as bean CREATED.  This is me aown pers'nl intellectshool
> and scientific conclusion.  Oy am compelled to sigh this as a result of
> me aown ability to mike awbservations, to think lawgic'ly, and to
> naotice cause and effect relationships.  Now to keep this simple, Oy'll
> sigh it agane: things *look* as if they've bean created; particularly
> the creatures--the plonts, onimals, and people.  Thus, Oy sigh this is
> Fundament'l evidence in favor of Creation.

Evolution is not an accident.  Creation is not the only alternative to
evolution.  (It is not an alternative at all in science.)  Creation is
not scientific.  These are three very common mistakes that creationists
make.

> Oy speak as a cawmon mon--ain't gawt much education, 'aven't read much
> about oorigens, and Oy'll probably nevah understand many of the
> technical details that the PHDers deal with.  'owever, *ev'ry* body on
> earth (from Aboriginees to Einsteins) 'as this fundament'l evidence at
> 'is fingertips.  Now if things 'ave nawt bean created, then what we
> 'ave 'ere is an awkcident lookin' out these eyeballs and typin' with
> these awkcidental fingahs, and 'avin' a discussion with other
> awkcidents (e.g., Lew the Mammel, Ray the Miller, Ethan the Vishniac)
> about whether we're all awkcidents or nawt.  This just does nawt mike
> sense.  It does nawt appear to fit the fundament'l evidence available
> to me five senses and me lawgic'l mind.  Ladies and gent'lmen of the
> Evolutionknight camp, Oy 'onestly connawt accept it intellectshooly.

Your writing, both literally and stylistically, suggests that you are
not an intellectual.  Therefore, the last declaration in this paragraph
is quite obvious and irrelevant.

> As Oy,ve 'eard the Creationknights sigh--where there's a design,
> there's a designer; where there's a law, there's a lawgiver; where
> there's a progrom, there's a progrommer.  And aroun' me Oy see such
> fontosstic'ly elaborate and clever designs and amazing laws and
> user-friendly progroms--within all the creatures that exist!

There is no scientific criteria for distinguishing "design", especially
"fantastically elaborate and clever designs".  I don't find the laws
too amazing.  Your evidence is highly subjective, therefore not valid
in a scientific context.

> 'ere's another way Oy look ot it.  If Oy 'old in me 'and some pebbles
> from a stream and osk you, "Is this a result of notur'l process-eaze or
> intelligent creativity?", you will sigh to me, "Notur'l process-eaze,
> of course".  If Oy then 'old in me 'and a ballpoint pean and repeat me
> question, you'll now onswer, "Intelligent creativity".  If Oy continue
> with an 'and calculator, you'll again sigh, "Intelligent creativity".
> If Oy then point to an owtomobile, a pers'nl computer, and a spice
> shut'l, you'll continue to onswer, "Intelligent creativity" (and sao
> wooed Oy).

Fine so far.

> Now comes the rub, me loaded question, and the point that powerfully
> compels me to reside in the Creationknight camp: if Oy point to the
> 'uman BRAIN and osk me question, 'ow shall you onswer?  Ladies and
> gentlemen, me fellow 'knights and seekers of truth, Oy per'snally
> connawt be 'onest unless Oy onswer, "Intelligent creativity".  For 'ere
> we 'ave the most marv'lous, sophisticated machine/computer in all the
> universe --the 'uman brain, with its 12 billion cells and 120 trillion
> connections, oorchestrating and controlling a BODY, which Oy suppose is
> second in awesomeness of design and wonder only to the brain itself.

I do not see the brain as terribly efficient.  Sometimes it does a good
job of making my day miserable by being painful.

> Now don't accuse me of some slick or emotional (or otherwise) debate
> toctic.  Oy'm appealing aonly to the evidence -- and that we take it at
> face value.  A Creationknight con look aroun' and sigh , "This (life on
> earth) looks awbviously to be a result of intelligent activity".  But
> con an Evolutionknight look aroun' and sigh, "This looks awbviously to
> be a result of awkcidental notural process-ease".

It isn't obvious.  (It isn't "awvious" either.)  Evolution does not speak
in terms of accident.  By the way, accident implies that a intent is pos-
sible.  There is no such thing as intent, as far as nature is concerned.
You will need a God to invoke intentions of any kind, and the invokation
is unscientific.

> Pik-shah the sime scene stonding in front of one of the beautiful Spice
> Shutt'ls (e.g., Columbia).  'ow does the 'uman body compare to the
> Spice Shutt'le in complexity, design, etc. ?  Now 'ere we 'ave an
> example of one of the greatest engineering/scientific feats of the
> 'uman race being compared with the 'uman body.  (Ot this point, Oy
> suspect that Sir Bill Jefferys, head of the Department of Gastronomy at
> Whots A Motta U, may wish to cawment on the "stewpid cawmplexities" of
> the 'uman body versus the "stewpid cawmplexities" of a spice shutt'l --
> sawry Bill but Oy just could'nt resist pokin' a litt'l fun at you on
> that one!).  Migh Oy suggest that the second is orders of mognitude
> more sophisticated, marvelous, fontostic, intricate, efficient, etc.
> than the first.  (To get me idea, just troy to get some engineering
> firm to mike you a functionally equivalent 'uman body in the sime soyze
> spice, or any soyze pockage for that matter).
>
> So what do you sigh, me Evolutionknight friends?  If Oy stond you in
> front of a spice shutt'le, and sigh, "'ow does it LOOK loik it got
> 'ere, by notural process-eaze or intelligent creativity?", what will
> you sigh?  And if Oy point to an 'uman body (or the 'ole world of
> creatures) and sigh, "'ow does it LOOK loik it got 'ere?", con you
> 'onestly sigh the first LOOKS loik it was created boy intelligence, but
> the second LOOKS loik it's an awkcident?  And con you 'onestly revile a
> Creationknight who wooed sigh, "At least it LOOKS loik it's bean
> created"?

The Space Shuttle happens to be a marvelous piece of engineering.
(This is my opinion vs. yours.)

You assume that there is something called "intelligent creativity"
beyond nature.  How do you justify this assumption?  especially in
science, which deals strictly with nature?

> In conclusion, 'ere Oy stond, me friends.  With all respect toward
> those who are more intelligent, brilliant, learned than Oy (and who
> disagree with me), Oy must sigh that it seems so awbvious that life is
> a result of great intelligent creativity that Oy con hardly believe
> that it was ever questioned.

In conclusion, your evidence is insufficient and invalid.  Your
conclusion, therefore, is invalid.

I respect your opinion, but it simply does not have a place in science.

For you and all creationists and all intellectuals of different fields,
science may be right, it may be close, it may be off the wall, if one
can truely find "THE TRUTH" or "REALITY" to compare.  Science is only
looking for the rules that maintain some consistency in nature.  What
science finds may or may not be reality, but we try our best to find
something reasonably close (we are confident, anyway).
___________________________________________________________________________

Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }