Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadovax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Re: Re: Why Creation? Message-ID: <542@cadovax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 17-Apr-85 23:59:46 EST Article-I.D.: cadovax.542 Posted: Wed Apr 17 23:59:46 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 22-Apr-85 00:45:55 EST References: <14600006@hpfcrs.UUCP> <525@cadovax.UUCP>, <184@spp1.UUCP> <530@cadovax.UUCP>, <190@spp1.UUCP> Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA Lines: 187 [.................] > What is the definition of proof? Most evolutionary scientists state > that evolution has been proved. Why have you been keeping this from? Are you a suspense novelist on the side? Please produce the proof and of course the definition of evolution it proves. Ok, ok, I should say that most evolutionary scientists state that evolution is a fact. For example: Stephen Jay Gould, 'Hens Teeth and Horses Toes' pp. 254 - 259, excerpts. Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away while scientists debate rival theories for explaining them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome. And human beings evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered. Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certaity". The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are *not* about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowleged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and seperate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution. ..... Our confidence that evolution occured centers upon three general arguments. First we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both field and laboratory. This evidence ranges from countless experiments on change in nearly everything about fruit flies subjected to artificial selection in the laboratory to the famous population of British moths that became black when industrial soot darkened the trees upon which the moths rest. (Moths gain protection from sharp-sighted bird predators by blending into the background.) Creationists do not deny these observations; how could they? Creationists have tightened their act. They now argue that God only created "basic kinds," and allowed for limited evolutionary meandering within them. Thus toy poodles and Great Danes come from the dog kind and moths can change color, but nature cannot convert from the dog to a cat or a monkey to a man. The second and third arguments for evolution--the case for major changes- do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason. Major evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of recorded human history. All historical sciences rest upon inference, and evolution is no different from geology, cosmology, or human history in this respect. In principle, we cannot observe processes that operated in the past. We must infer them from results that still surround us: living and fossil organisms for evolution, documents and artifacts for human history, strata and topography for geology. The second argument--that the imperfection of nature reveals evolution-- strikes many people as ironic, for they feel that evolution should be most elegantly displayed in the nearly perfect adaptation expressed by some organisms--the camber of a gull's wing, or butterflies that cannot be seen in ground litter because they mimic leaves so precisely. But perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection. Perfection covers the tracks of past history. And past history--the evidence of descent--is the mark of evolution. Evolution lies exposed in the *imperfections* that record a history of descent. Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor? An engineer, starting from scratch, could design better limbs in each case. Why should all the large native mammals of Austrailia be marsupials, unless they descended from a common ancestor isolated on this island continent? Marsupials are not "better," or ideally suited for Austrailia; many have been wiped out by placental mammals imported by man from other continents. This principle of imperfection extends to all historical sciences. When we recognize the etymology of September, October, November, and December (seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth), we know that the year once started in March, or that two additional months must have been added to an original calendar of ten months. The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common--and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution [reference to later section on punctuated equilibrium] but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammilian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammilian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammilian ear are descendents of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet palentologists have discovered two transitional lineages of theraspids(the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint--one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones(soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones(as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape's of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features--increasing crainial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby? > > ..... I honestly believe, if you have > > another idea on how everything came to be, and if you get a movement > > behind, produce textbooks and teaching aids, you should be able to present > > your views in the school system. > > I see. So school science should be politically dictated by non-scientists? > If I can gain enough political momentum I can cause school teachers to > teach that the earth is flat, or 6000 years old, or was created yesterday > etc.? Science by propaganda campaign, WONDERFUL. > (what about the separation of laboratory and state? :-) > > > Keith Doyle > # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd Why would you define someone who comes up with another origins theory a non-scientist. If science decides to base line everything it currently accepts and define anything new as non-science then I think we've just heard the death knell for true science. MIke Johnston I would agree on your last sentence. However, science does not reject new ideas and theories. However, scientists expect new ideas to have certain characteristics that make them worthy of adoption. Science generally does not support several conflicting theories at the same time. The theory that best fits the facts, makes predictions, is falsifiable, etc. is utilized until something better comes along. Science certainly has been guilty at times of ignoring theories that later prove to be the better ones. But evolution is the better theory that *replaced* creation as it is much more useful to scientists exploring in areas related to biology etc. Evolution can suggest new experiments that can further refine theories of how evolution might have occured, real experiments that can expand our sphere of knowledge. Creation however, suggests little, if anything that helps us move forward. Creation for example, would indicate that it is impossible to generate new forms of life via experimenting with DNA. Evolution makes no such claim, and may actually be of service in decomposing more exactly what effects the DNA protiens have on species etc. .... One witness pointed to a passage in his chemistry text that attributed great age to fossil fuels. Since the Arkansas act specifically includes "a relatively recent age of the earth" among the definitions of creation science requireing "balanced treatment" this passage would have to be changed. The witness claimed he did not know how to make such an alteration. Why not? retorted the assistant attorney general in his cross-examination. You only need to insert a simple sentence: "Some scientists, however, believe that fossil fuels are relatively young." Then, in the most impressive statement of the entire trial, the teacher responded. I could, he argued, insert such a sentence in mechanical compliance with the act. But I cannot, as a conscientious teacher, do so. For "balanced treatment" must mean "equal dignity" and I would therefore have to justify the insertion. And this I cannot do, for I have heard no valid arguments that would support such a position - Stephen Jay Gould, 'Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes' pp. 288-289 I'd like to take an example issue with the creationist 'special processes which are not now operating in the natural universe'. This is how the creationists purport to explain the creation of the universe, and of all the animal and human 'kinds'. In other words, 'magic'. You don't need 'magic' to explain how the Grand Canyon was formed, we have natural processes that explain such quite well. And you don't need 'magic' to make light beams from distant stars reach the earth, there are natural processes that, given enough time, can do it on their own. Within science, natural processes are preferred to 'magic', as the understanding of these natural processes is what science is about. Science cannot understand 'magic'. 'Magic' is outside the realm of science. You can't propose 'magic' as an alternative to science and expect everyone to throw Einstein and Darwin and all the rest out the window to bow down in awe of the great nonunderstandable 'magic'. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd "You'll THINK to know what you REALLY pay!"