Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunkerb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittvax!bunkerb!garys
From: garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: explanation granted.
Message-ID: <502@bunkerb.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 15-May-85 12:36:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: bunkerb.502
Posted: Wed May 15 12:36:35 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 17-May-85 03:37:00 EDT
References: <285@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA>
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 102

> > From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
> > 
> > Reluctant as I am to leap into discussions such as occur in this
> > group, I want to ask Keebler (aka Ernest Hua) to explain himself.

> Sure thing.

> > Excerpted from Keebler:

> > >                  ... Evolution is a view of the natural flow of things,
> > > which is assumed to always have happened and always will...

> > Clearly, this *assumption* is one of the main, if not the main,
> > sources of disagreement in this group.  Why do you make this
> > assumption?  Exactly what does it mean?  Why does it upset you
> > that others do not choose to make this assumption?

I thank Keebler for his explanation.  It confirms what I had
suspected, namely, that his (and many others') definition of
science rules out God a priori.  This puts a severe limitation
on discussion in a group which purports to be on the subject
of creation vs. evolution.  If by definition God does not exist,
or is at best irrelevant, then how can any discussion proceed?

> 1) I make this assumption, as scientists must do, because science becomes
> a joke if this is incorrect.  (I am not saying that this is correct; I am
> just making this assumption to make scientific study possible.)  Science
> tries to find out about laws of nature.  Laws that change with time are
> not laws themselves, but only sub-laws in a much bigger law, a dependency
> of which is time.  It may actually be that no law really exist at all, and
> in fact, all that we have gathered as data for evidence of laws is just
> simple coincidence or, better yet, a cruel joke devised by some omniscient
> being.  But until we figure that out, we have to live with the assumption
> that nature is consistent.

I can accept the above, with the following comments:

1. You earlier say that the 'natural flow of things' has always happened
and always will.  It does no harm to the assumption that nature is
consistent to suppose that the material universe had a beginning and
will have an end.

2. Anything we call a law today might turn out to be a sub-law tomorrow.
All of the physical laws are merely approximations of reality as we
are able to perceive it.  Newton's laws of motion are sufficiently
accurate most of the time, but in some cases (e.g. very high speeds),
the error becomes significant, and we switch to Einstein.  Newton's
laws are exact within Newton's model of the universe, but are merely
approximations to the real universe.

3. Your assumption also rules out miracles a priori.  That's ok, though,
to some extent, because by definition a miracle is an exception, or,
if you prefer, an inconsistency.  So, it is in a sense true that miracles
are not scientific -- if you could reproduce a miracle under controlled
conditions, it wouldn't be a miracle, but, as you imply, an example
of some other law.   Now don't misunderstand -- I agree that any
claim of miracle should be viewed with a large dose of skepticism,
and that 99+% of all such claims are bogus (largely, I think, these
claims occur because a lot of people have a rather loose definition
of 'miracle').  But I don't think it necessary to assume that there
has never been a miracle, and never will be.  Again, it is an
approximation, even a very close approximation, to say that miracles
do not occur, but one must remember that there is a difference
between the model and reality.

> If you want to find consistency, you have to expect it to exist.

Interesting the similarity between this statement and Hebrews 11:6:
"...anyone who comes to him [God] must believe that he exists and
that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."  Certainly, those
who operate from the assumption that there is no God will never
find him.  (Please note that I am not saying it is wrong to expect
consistency -- except in the beliefs of humans, of course :-).

> Certainly.  There are certain qualifications that we use to define
> life.  A rock cannot satisfy any of them, therefore, we cannot con-
> sider a rock as a life form.  However, what about a virus.  It is
> capable of self-replication under certain circumstances, though it
> is most often dormant.  Is it a part-time life form?

There are plants whose seeds can remain dormant for thousands of
years and germinate normally.  I would not call them part-time
life forms.  Frankly, I don't know what to call a virus.

> By the way, your first sentence in this past paragraph is self-con-
> tradictory.  Life cannot exist "in a form we would not recognize as
> life" because then we would not call it life.  There is also the
> misunderstanding that there is some continuum which someone (perhaps
> you are refering to me?) partitioned into life and non-life.

I was only trying to consider all possibilities.  Someone made
a statement that there was no clear distinction between life
and nonlife, and that therefore it wasn't entirely meaningful
to ask when 'life' began.  Since you say this is not your view,
I am content to drop it.

> Live long and prosper.
> Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }

Peace and long life.
Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garys