Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!husc6!ut-sally!seismo!vrdxhq!BMS-AT!stuart From: stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: Creation, Evolution, and Flood Message-ID: <210@BMS-AT.UUCP> Date: Sun, 21-Sep-86 01:58:26 EDT Article-I.D.: BMS-AT.210 Posted: Sun Sep 21 01:58:26 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 23-Sep-86 02:28:15 EDT References: <203@BMS-AT.UUCP> <1148@cybvax0.UUCP> Organization: Business Management Systems, Inc., Fairfax, VA Lines: 113 Keywords: science flood cosmology Xref: linus talk.origins:73 talk.religion.misc:168 Summary: True science. This is in reponse to several flames. I have included only the one quote. In article <1148@cybvax0.UUCP>, mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > > Evolutionist: The only alternative to evolution is special creation. > > Since God doesn't exist, this is clearly impossible. Therefore > > evolution is true. (Despite the evidence.) This is a very close quote by a respected proponent of evolution encountered during my reading in college. It is very unscholarly of me to forget the name, but I am working on it and wanted to get a reply out. (And it has been years since my scholarly days.) > Patent misrepresentation. There are innumerable other alternatives, such > as spontaneous generation, other mythological scenarios, etc. Nor do > scientists make the error of saying "because A isn't so, B is so." > We simply say that evolution is the best supported hypothesis. > (If you want to debate the evidence, go ahead.) You are correct, this error is not made in a scientific capacity. Many scientists, being human, have nevertheless made the mistake and called it science. What is science? Let's see; this was years ago; I believe it went something like this: "Science" is a system for accumulating knowledge about the Universe we live in. Facts are established by *repeatable* and *observable* experiments. A hypothesis attempts to explain the facts. A hypothesis confirmed by additional *independent* experiments is known as a theory. A theory so well established that little or no disagreement remains within the community scientists is known as a law. In formulating and applying these laws, we *assume* that they are universally applicable. (This is not neccessarily true. Newton's laws of physics only apply within certain limits of relative velocity. Einstein's laws may not always apply either. There may {horrors} be still more that we don't know.) For those who didn't know what "special evolution" was: "Special relativity" refers to the well established laws of relative motion published by Einstein. General relativity refers to the later extention of these laws to a theory encompassing gravitation as well. "Special evolution" refers to the well established laws of environmental adaptation (survival of the fittest) published by Darwin. General evolution refers to the later extension of these laws as a possible explanation of the origin of life itself. General evolution is a best a hypothesis. The facts are established by experiments that took place long ago and are not repeatable. The only possibility for confirmation (at present) is to predict that a certain fossil (that has not already been found) should be found. Are there any instances of a successful prediction? The journals are full of "amazing finds". If general evolution were such a well established theory, a new fossil find should come as no more surprise than the lastest atomic clock experiment confirming the validity of Einsteins predictions. I AM NOT SAYING THAT EVOLUTION IS WRONG. I am just saying that it by its very nature, like creation, is not scientifically verifiable. Note, special evolution is scientific. I can put white moths with recessed genes for black in a black enviroment with visually guided predators, and every time the moth population will become predominantly black. With advances in genetic research, it may become possible to scientifically prove (or disprove) the *possibility* of general evolution. When we can observe artificially accelerated general evolution in the laboratory, we will have established that life could indeed arise from lifeless matter. Perhaps we could even perform the experiment on a planetary scale! This still doesn't prove anything about what actually happened to us. History is not a strictly scientific endeavor. We can only prove that a particular reenactment is *consistent* with the scientific laws *that we know*. If a 19'th century person heard of someone travelling to a distant planet and returning home 800 years later having aged only a few years, the story would be dismissed as "unscientific". By definition, creation is inconsistent with the scientific laws we know. Creation is not scientific (but might be true) and should be treated as religion or cosmology in our schools. General evolution is consistent with *many* of the facts and known laws. this is what is meant by evolution being the "best available hypothesis". The hypothesis is still being altered yearly to fit the latest facts. If and when it finally becomes a theory (it could happen) or even a law (it has to happen given certain conditions), it will be time to begin teaching it as fact in our schools. Until then, it should be treated as science fiction. Even then, the origin of our earth should be regarded as history (a consistent sequence of events) rather than scientific fact. What do we really know about Napoleon? Incidently, creation (apart from the initial miracle) is also consistent with most of the facts. Did you notice that the experimental fact on which science is based is also history? When we read in celtic mythology that Merlin caused the blocks of stone to float through the air onto the waiting ship, we assume that this is not really what happened. Why do we trust the story about the bomb that blew up a city? Come on now, do you really believe that one bomb could blow up an entire city? :-) -- Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart>