Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!zehntel!dual!mordor!ut-sally!utastro!padraig
From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Ethics 'n Stuff
Message-ID: <27@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 20-Apr-85 18:44:16 EST
Article-I.D.: utastro.27
Posted: Sat Apr 20 18:44:16 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Apr-85 22:42:52 EST
References: <945@uwmacc.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 43

Paul DuBois writes:
> 
> It is a common technique to prove that X is true by showing that not-X is
> false.  The question is whether creation and evolution are the only
> alternatives.  They are.  There is, ultimately, no alternative to
> evolution but creation.  If evolution did not occur here, then life was
> created, or it came from somewhere else.  If it came from somewhere
> else.  If it did not evolve there, it was either created or it came
> from somewhere else.  Iterate until exhausted.
> 
> One may say that there are other alternatives to DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE
> ON EARTH than evolution of life from non-life or creation of life
> (e.g., panspermia).  Fine.  But that doesn't really change the
> ultimate question.
> 

These comments raise some very serious issues. First there is the blatant
confusion on the meaning of evolution. EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY
ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.

The debating technique you refer to is extensively used by creationists
here, and merits further comment.
By definition, creation is not in the realm of science, and
cannot claim to be the only alternative, since such a claim implies
that no others can be found, ever. There is no justification for claiming
that creation is the sole alternative to evolution. The argument you use
is totally absurd, for by using your own iteration scheme, one
may ask where did the thing doing the act of creation come from etc.

Scientific theories are not proven by the act of disproving others.
They can't ever be, since they are always subject to revision and
consequently are only held tentatively. What changes is the degree
of reliability assigned to them. To say "There is, ultimately,
no alternative to evolution but creation" betrays your severe lack
of understanding of science. Having an alternative pet
theory to a scientific one does not make it a scienific theory.

I would appreciate an explicit, to the point, clarification of your
position on each of the above paragraphs.

Thanks in advance.

Padraig Houlahan.