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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill
From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Handwaving
Message-ID: <597@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 24-Aug-85 11:30:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.597
Posted: Sat Aug 24 11:30:55 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Aug-85 01:04:10 EDT
References: <14600042@hpfcrs.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 51

> 
> > [Bill Jefferys]
> >Let me give you an example.  Henry Morris wants to explain the entire
> >geologic column, including the Grand Canyon, by the Noachian Deluge.
> >He waves his hands, calls the rain out of nowhere, makes the water
> >disappear into nowhere, and presto!  The geologic column.  No calculations.
> >No hydrodynamics, no hydrology, no physics, just a bunch of words.  WHERE,
> >IN ALL THE CREATIONIST LITERATURE, IS THERE EVEN AN ATTEMPT TO DEAL
> >WITH THIS FUNDAMENTAL CREATIONIST ASSERTION USING THE TOOLS OF PHYSICS?
> >Answer: Nowhere will you find it.  That's why one can't credit this
> >idea with being scientific.
> 
>      Right now I am in the process of reading "The Genesis Flood" by Morris.
> To assert that he "waves his hands, calls the rain out of nowhere, makes the
> water disappear into nowhere, and presto!  The geologic column"... I would
> assume that you have read it.  The only thing is, I don't find that to be
> the case at all.  If by handwaving you mean he calls into play the power of
> God, then I can understand where you are coming from, even if I don't agree
> with you.

Yes, saying "God did it" is exactly the kind of handwaving I am talking about.
Since by definition, God can do anything, this is no explanation in the
scientific sense.  If it is claimed to be scientific (as Morris does) then
it is pseudoscience.  If you believe it as a matter of faith, and do not
claim it to be scientific, then it is personal belief or religion, and I
cannot quarrel with that.

I am glad that your reading of Morris coincides with mine.

>      By the way, could you give me the calculations and physics involved
> in explaining to me why the bumble-bee can fly?  Or why man uses less than
> 1/6 th of his brain?  Or perhaps share with us the chemical formula and
> the synthetic equations needed to produce life from non life?  Perhaps
> give us the calculations that tell us why this planet has an atmosphere
> of Nitrogen and Oxygen and the others don't.  How about using the "TOOLS
> OF PHYSICS" to tell me why I am writing this?
> 
>      I predict that you will give me nothing more than handwaving!
> 
Please do not change the subject.  If you are sincerely interested
in these questions, and are not just using a dishonest debating trick, 
please submit a separate article.  I will be glad to give you references.

-- 
"Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from
	religious conviction."  -- Blaise Pascal

	Bill Jefferys  8-%
	Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (USnail)
	{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill	(uucp)
	bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA		(ARPANET)