Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site denelvx.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!hao!denelcor!denelvx!neal
From: neal@denelvx.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Response to the Frontline
Message-ID: <38@denelvx.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 27-May-85 17:47:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: denelvx.38
Posted: Mon May 27 17:47:52 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 30-May-85 03:34:32 EDT
References: <1095@uwmacc.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Denelcor, Aurora, Colorados
Lines: 237

******************************************************************************
> 
> I would like to thank Duncan Buell for posting an extremely clearly
> stated and well-written article on the nature of creation and evolution
> theory.

	And I would like to thank you for the consistently well-thought-out
and moderate (especially moderate) postings you have given us.  (-: Especially
for a creationist.  :-)

>	  Naturally I have some disagreement with him...

	If I have one complaint about your postings, it is this:  Aside from
calling yourself a creationist and poking some holes (real or imagined--some
are still in doubt in my mind) in evolutionary theory, I don't have the
faintest idea what your own position is.  I'm adding my plea that you
divulge this information to the requests I've see go before.

	Before going on, let me clarify my own position somewhat.  For the
purposes of this debate, I would call myself an evolutionist.  By that, I
mean that I have done some reading in biology--enough to have seen some
(perhaps faulty--certainly outdated) of the arguments for evolution.  I also
look around and see similarities amongst all the diversity and I conclude
that something resembling evolution probably did happen.  The ranges of
similarity I find particularly suggestive of a tree-structure (in the
computer science sense) and I note that evolution explains this
tree-structure better than creation and I am convinced.

	Since I am not a biologist, I take this conviction with a grain of
salt (at least).  On the one hand, I am not at all prepared to evaluate the
more technical arguments on either side.  (I am still extremely interested
in at least being exposed to them, however.)  On the other hand, I am not
likely to publish in biology so that if my conviction is wrong, no one is
being misled but myself.

	I have done some serious study of the philosophy of science,
however; and it is from that position that I have some criticisms of your
(Paul's) posting.

> One obtains, then, at best, a catalog of phenomena.  I disagree with
> this entirely.

	Not exactly a catalog, a structure.  Even by only asking "what" and
never asking "why", relationships between phenomena are suggested just by
similarities and differences between the phenomena.  I submit that this
structure is useful in and of itself.  Note that this structure may be full
of errors or even entirely imaginary, it can still be used to make
predictions.  If reality matches our predictions, we have a bit more faith
(probably a poor choice of word cosidering the newgroup ;-) in our structure
and start to use the predictions we can make with it.

>		  I submit that no one actually practices science without
> asking the question "why", and if this is true, your formulation cannot
> be accepted *except* by very narrowly focussed individuals.

	A distinction needs to be made between formal and informal science.
"Why" questions are used extensively _informally_ and among "friends" to
achieve new insights and make guesses about what _might_ be worth trying to
look at formally.  In this regard, "why" questions are similar to the stick
models that some organic chemists use to figure out how atoms go together.
When it comes time to present the results to someone who is not already
convinced, both the "why"s and the sticks are left at home and more formal
presentations are made.

>								  I also
> thing the dichotomy between "why" and "what" questions is false to some
> extent.  "Why does the apple fall to the ground" and "what accounts
> for the fact that the apple falls to the ground" are essentially the
> same question, even though one is a "what" and the other is a "why".

	Not at all, "the force of gravity" is a much more satisfying answer
to the latter question than it is to the former.

> Taking the question of "what" happened, then, look at it this way:
> 
> (i)     All forms of life (except the first one(s)) developed from
>         previously existing forms over a period of time.
> 
> (ii)    All forms of life appeared suddenly on the face of the earth
>         (perhaps not all at once).
> 
> Neither of these hypotheses invokes a supernatural creator.  Granted,
> if (ii) were accepted, then perhaps many, even most, people would
> attribute the sudden appearance to such a creator.  But that has
> nothing to do with the investigation of "what" happened, and cannot be
> helped.  What makes (ii) less "scientific" as a hypothesis?  It can be
> investigated, it can be evaluated in light of the evidence, predictions
> can be made from it, etc.  (One may not believe that it is supported by
> the facts.  But that is a different question.)

	What makes (ii) less scientific is that (i) only assumes mechanisms
that science (not necessarily biology but some discipline within science) is
competent to deal with.  Besides "why" and "what" questions discussed above,
questions of the form "how does/can this work" need to be considered by
science and/or scientists.  A biologist being asked about mechanisms for (i)
can go as deeply into the answers as his competence will allow and then
justifiably (assuming he knows as much as it is reasonable to expect a
biologist to know) refer his questioners to a chemist or a physicist.  A
biologist being asked similar questions about (ii) will have no where else to
turn except perhaps to a theologian.

> 	  Who could keep from wondering about the origin of the little
> green men?)

	Indeed!  Just to reemphasize the point above, let me point out that
a biologist postulating "little green men" would be expected to produce
_some_kind_ of evidence.  N.B. Again referral to another scientific
discpline would be acceptable evidence IF the practioners of the other
discipline concurred.

> Note that some evolutionists here have claimed that evolution is in
> fact a theory which is restricted to the origin of life on earth.  This
> claim has usually been made in response to being asked the question of
> how the universe arose (or some similar question) by creationists.
> But if one really wishes to take refuge in this response, one must then
> (by the reasoning in the last couple of paragraphs) admit to the
> logical possibility of an investigation that may lead to the conclusion
> of non-supernatural creation.  By backing into that particular corner,
> the evolutionist loses what many evolutionists apparently consider to
> be their strongest philosophical weapon against the creationist:  the
> accusation of supernaturalism.

	Logical possibility is not quite enough.  Physics and chemistry
support the claims of evolutionary biologists.  Non-supernatural creation
requires starting at least one entirely new scientific discipline from
scratch.

> > This, then is the heart of the matter.  All  the  evolution-
> > ists  have to do to totally disprove creationism is to prove
> > the nonexistence of  God/god/supernatural  power.   And  the
> > FIRST  thing  that  the  creationists  MUST  do is prove the
> > existence.

	I'd have said this somewhat differently (and almost did above).
Physics and chemistry provide mechanisms that support evolution, what are
the mechanisms by which creation _could_ work?

> This is why scientific arguments can make no statement (that is, no
> absolute statement) that things are not due to supernatural causes.  Or
> due to them.  And that is why the question must be left open and the
> possibility not ruled out.  Otherwise one has decided that something
> cannot be true because it simply cannot be true, according to premises
> that rule out the possibility.  Which premises, all agree, cannot be
> proved.

	Science is not competent to make statements about the supernatural
even to the extent of ruling it out.  Science is competent however to make
statements about science: namely that the supernatural is not part of it.  If
this bothers you, consider it a limitation on science.

> Unfortunately the naturalistic viewpoint starts with the equally
> unprovable assumption that naturalistic processes and principles are
> sufficient to explain all phenomena.  But how can that be known?
> 
> I understand what you are saying.  Can the evolutionist think the
> converse thought with the mind of the creationist for a moment and see
> how the criticism applies in both directions?

	Even Euclid knew that any discipline had to start from unprovable
assumptions.  One might very well claim that one unprovable assumption is as
good a starting point as any other.

	My appeal in this case is to pragmatism:  At the point in history
when science was based on supernatural (i.e., religious) foundations the
results, although in some cases impressive, were limited.  In fact, the
supernatural foundations sometimes provided an actual hinderance as Galileo
and Copernicus discoverd.  Since science has been based on naturalistic
assumptions, the increase in its usefulness to society has been dramatic.

> As a mathematician you should know that X can be proved by showing
> that not-X must be false.  If life did not evolve (life in general)
> what else is there?

	This has been disputed sufficiently that I feel no need to add to it.

> This is the heart of it, isn't it?  No law is saying that children are
> to be forced to *be* creationists - only that they are to be given the
> opportunity to see how the evidence looks from a creationist
> viewpoint.  Just as no law is forcing children to *be* evolutionists,
> only giving them an opportunity to view the evidence from that point of
> view.  But that is the only point of view they will see, currently.
> The ACLU said during the days of the Scopes trial that it is sheer
> bigotry to teach only one view of origins.  I guess it's different when
> the shoe is on the other foot.  It seems to me that most evolutionists
> are simply unable to separate the concepts of personal belief and
> scientific investigation, when it comes to creationism.  Being unable
> to think in "creationist mode" because they do not personally believe
> it, they cannot see how it can possibly be worthy of consideration.

	This is indeed the heart of it.  I don't my children taught that
creation is science for very much the same reason that I don't want them
taught that pi == 3.0000 .  One thing that I'm still waiting to see is how
the evidence looks from a creationist viewpoint.  Virtually the only postings
I've seen on the net that address that particular issue have been Mr.
Kukuk's and I would rather my children be protected from those until they
have the knowledge to recognize them for what they are.  (You don't suppose
Mr. K. is really an evolutionist trying to make creationism look bad do
you? :-)

> Even if creationism is *not* taught, it is very *bad* science to teach
> evolution without presenting the evidence that doesn't fit it very
> well.  This evidence certainly is not presented.  Our children are
> given this nice fairy tale about the horse, and about the peppered
> moth, and other such examples.  They are not told about the gaps, the
> dismal failures and fakes, the massive difficulties in establishing
> ancestral relationships, and other blemishes.  They get a finished
> (and hence false in many ways) product...is *that* what is called good
> science education?  Not in my book.  It bears little resemblance to the
> excitement and challenge of science, or to the real status of
> evolutionary theory.

	Of all your points, this is the one I agree with.  Unfortunately,
what the teaching of evolution DOES resemble is the teaching of mathematics,
physics, chemistry, and even history which fare no better.

>			    One can adopt a creator as a hypothesis.
> One can even personally believe *that there is* a creator, without
> being religious.

	I hear you say this.  I'll believe it when I see it.  Are there any
creationists who are also atheists, agnostics, and/or secular humanists?

>		    When one personally *believes in* a creator, one
> becomes religious.  But even then, one does not *have* to approach
> scientific questions in that frame of mind.  Just as one does not
> *have* to say, at the merest hint of a difficult in a theory, "God
> must have done it that way and we'll never understand."

	This I do accept from the example you have provided us.  Once again I
thank you for it.

> Paul DuBois     {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--

And each one there		Regards,
    has one thing shared		Neal Weidenhofer
...And wept when it was all done	Denelcor, Inc.
    for being done too soon.		<hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal