Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site spp1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!spp1!johnston
From: johnston@spp1.UUCP (Micheal L. Johnston)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Re: Why Creation?
Message-ID: <184@spp1.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Apr-85 14:25:35 EST
Article-I.D.: spp1.184
Posted: Thu Apr 11 14:25:35 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 14-Apr-85 02:33:25 EST
References: <14600006@hpfcrs.UUCP> <525@cadovax.UUCP>
Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach  CA
Lines: 69

> [.............]
> >     This leaves the believer in evolution just as much a man of faith as
> >the believer in special creation. However, I have chosen the faith in creation
> >as the evidence seems to side more with it.
> 
> >Lief Sorensen
> 
> I disagree.  However, much of this disagreement probably exists in our
> definitions of 'Science'.  Evolution holds up much better than creation
> when you look at things like: falsifiability, ability to make predictions
> etc.  I suppose you could make a case that the sun is only 2 million miles
> away instead of 93, and much smaller, and that you believe it is true.
> I suppose you could then call this a religious belief, and that any
> other estimates of the distance of the sun are also religious beliefs.
> Certainly we have not traveled to the sun and measured the distance directly.
> However, by using scientific principles that have proven to be true when
> applied to similar environments that we can test and measure, so we
> certainly have better evidence that the sun is actually 93 million miles
> away.  Does this mean that we should teach our children with 'equal time'
> and that some people believe that the sun is only 2 million miles away?
> (that the earth is flat? etc.)
> 

Evolution and Creation cannot even be compared. Creation deals with how
everything came to be. Evolution concerns an ongoing process. Creation
should be compared with an origins theory which may or may not use
evolution as support. 

And no origins theory can be proved or falsified, which according to my
definitions (you're allowed to differ) makes them both non-theories, more
or less models that evidence can support but never prove or disprove.

Now the distance to the sun can be proved or disproved since it's there
now and you won't find many who will cling to a wrong theory about
something that exists and can be measured.

> 
> If the bottom line is, you are arguing for 'equal time' then I must propose
> this:
> 
> 1.  The universe was created 5 minutes ago.
> 
> 2.  It was created by a panel of 3 gods named Wilbur, Jack and Fred.
> 
> 3.  They are all powerful, and created a 'fully operational' universe.
> 
> 4.  Since they are all powerful, it only took them 12 seconds. (they only
>     had to warm up)
> 
> Now.  Tell me why this belief is not EVERY BIT as valid as the Creationist
> account and shouldn't also receive 'equal time' in the schools along with
> Evolution and Creation.
> 
> Keith Doyle
> #  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
> "You'll PAY to know what you REALLY think!"
> 

Normally I would say that any origins 'theory' you wanted to come up with
is as vaild as creation (or any other origins model) in terms of its
qualifications as a model. A model can say whatever it wants. The trick is
to make reasonable enough to be believed. 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.
Your proposal above deals with an origin theory that differs from the rest
in that it can be verified, occurring after recorded history.

		Mike Johnston