reply: My theory is that theories are not the kind of thing that can be proven or disproven. Theories are explanations. Theoretically, the number of explanations for any event is unlimited. However, some explanations are more plausible than others. For example, if the Mona Lisa were discovered in someone's cellar which of the following explanations would you think is most plausible?
(a) human beings physically removed and made an unauthorized transfer of the painting
(b) aliens from another planet removed and transferred the painting
(c) the painting appeared miraculously in the cellar
(d) the painting was transferred there by Uri Gellar using only the power of his mind to manipulate physical reality (psychokinesis)
I maintain that of these four explanations, theft is more plausible than extraterrestrial, miraculous or psychic event. I think any reasonable person would agree. I hope you would agree. We may never be able to prove theory (a), but it is still the most plausible and reasonable.
Likewise with evolution vs. creationism: evolution is a more plausible and reasonable explanation of species than is special creation. We can't prove either theory.
My theory is that religious writings such as the Bible originated for spiritual and social purposes, not to teach science. But if one wants to treat Genesis as if it were a scientific theory and match it with natural selection, I think any reasonable person, skeptic or not, would select natural selection as more plausible.
I was looking around the Internet when I found your dictionary. It certainly is an odd dictionary. Most dictionaries don't rant when they give a definition. I guess yours is a philosophical dictionary.
I am famous for my ranting. Fortunately, my critics never rant, so we balance each other out.
I started out by looking up Creationism. As you might guess, I am a Creationist. What you may not guess is that I am an uneducated Creationist, that is, I'm still working on my Bachelor's degree.
I never would have guessed that, but then I am a skeptic so what else would you expect?
I think your definition of Creationism was fine for the first 2 paragraphs or so. You began to say odd and irrelevant things after that.
Thanks. I'm also well known for saying odd and irrelevant things.
I think that your definition splits in half once one realizes that you have two meanings for the term "evolution."
Better my definition should split in half than I should do so!
You say so yourself. You believe that it is a fact that it has occurred, but it is a theory how it occurred.
That's right, but this has nothing to do with split definitions, whatever they might be. What I said was that just about the entire scientific community agrees that evolution is a fact, but that they do not agree as to how evolution occurred.
When someone argues about evolution, we need to know whether they are discussing the historical event or the mechanism. I believe this is a key to everything else that I would say about your article.
You are right!
The corollary in Creationism also exists, which you do not acknowledge. We would say that it is a fact that God created the Universe.
Many evolutionists would also say that they believe God created the Universe.
What you seem not to know is that there is a lot of lively debate on the Ph.D. level trying to discover how the Creation occurred. Indeed, there is even an annual competition for technical Creationist papers. Have you ever heard of Dr. Russ Humphreys or Ken Ham? Perhaps not.
I must admit my ignorance of these gentleman but I will take your word for it that they write lively papers as they debate how creation occurred. I doubt that these papers are of any interest to the scientific community, however.
You said that "One sign that an idea is not scientific is the claim that the idea is absolutely certain and irrefutable." You quote Gould as saying, "I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs." Of course, Dr. Gould means the "how" of evolution, because you will never doubt that it is a fact that evolution occurred. It is only the "how" that you will doubt.
I never say 'never' (except of course when I say I never say 'never'), but I agree that it is highly unlikely I will come to doubt evolution has occurred.
That was a clever bait-and-switch you pulled there. I might not have caught it if you hadn't alerted me to the two meanings you give to the word "evolution."
Now, you are losing me. Apparently you think that since I said that evolution is a fact that I am also saying that evolution is "absolutely certain and irrefutable." I am afraid that I must give you another one of those "spit definitions" as you call them. (Actually, it is not unusual for the same word to have several meanings. Please don't feign ignorance here.) The word 'fact' is sometimes used to mean "certain" in the sense you are implying. However, facts can be improbable, probable, highly probable, etc. When we talk about historical facts, or scientific facts, for example, we may be very certain of our facts or not very certain of them. When I say that evolution is a fact, I do not mean that it is an infallible truth. I mean that it is established with a degree of probability such that it would be highly unreasonable to doubt it.
Of course your belief that evolution has occurred is unscientific, by your own definition.
It is? Your logic escapes me here.
Indeed, there are no pure theories in any discipline, so far as I know. I have read Einstein's pondering of this oddity. Ultimately, all theories must have an ad hoc belief, an assumption, as the starting seed.
Name dropper! If Einstein pondered that there are no pure theories, then I guess it can be pondered. I can usually ponder with the best of them, but I must admit I don't know what you are getting at here. An ad hoc belief is one introduced to try to explain away apparently refuting evidence for one's theory. Ad hoc hypotheses are not the same as basic assumptions. I am certainly aware that scientific theories are based on metaphysical assumptions. Science assumes that there is a constancy to laws of nature, rigid enough to make worthwhile the search for regularities and patterns in nature. Science assumes Occam's razor: that hypotheses should not be multiplied unnecessarily. For example, when the evidence indicates with strong probability that a fossil is millions of years old, science assumes it is more reasonable to believe that the fossil is millions of years old than that it was created in 4004 B.C. by God who made it look like it is millions of years old.
In the case of evolution, there is much more evidence pointing for Creationism than for evolution, by the knowledge that we now have.
Then why does the entire scientific community stubbornly reject this "evidence"? Are you implying that there is a universal conspiracy by scientists to support a theory they know is inferior to another theory? This sound preposterous to me.
You don't care, and you may never care.
Speak for yourself. I do care.
The Creationists' belief in what occurred is no less-supported than is evolution. The unique dogmatism for which you attack Creationists does not exist. Both Creationists and evolutionists see the event that occurred is fact, but debate the mechanism.
I am not sure what you are talking about here but it seems that maybe you are using one of those split definitions you speak of.
Suppose that this was not so. You still should not use the quote from a hostile source to prove the errors of your opponent. Maybe Gould can't imagine what it would take to change our minds. The important question would be, Can Creationists imagine such a set of data? But, Gould legitimizes your opinion.
I'd quote anyone to prove the errors of my opponents, if I thought quotes could prove anything. But I don't. So, I won't. Anyway, I think Gould has a much better understanding of these issues than you (or I!) do.
FYI, one of the first meetings that I attended by the Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico, Inc. compared dating techniques. I've seen comparisons of dating techniques ever since the 6th grade, but this one was more detailed and had a broader scope. It appears that you are ignorant of such things, though, because you say that we would have to do this, and you don't mention that we have done this. Now you know.
I read Duane Gish on these so-called scientific dating techniques and attacks on traditional scientific techniques. I am sorry but he was immensely unconvincing.
I've had a lot of experience debating evolution with evolutionists. There are usually 15 of them yelling at me. I much prefer doing this by e-mail. Maybe you will do what my opponents usually do (on any subject), and ignore what I've said. At least, though, I now have a fair chance to present what I believe. How rare.
All things good are rare.
I'll be decent enough to give you my name and e-mail address. I'm a Computer Science and Engineering student at LeTourneau University, a Christian engineering college in Longview, Texas. We celebrate our 50th anniversary next year. We've had a Web site for about 5 months.
Signed,
Richard Alexander
alexandr@letu.edu
Congratulations!
11 Jul 1996
Robert, I really like the dictionary. One point I have never seen about
creationism is that (and I am assuming here) there are probably no
non-Christian adherents. Creationists ask for the theory to be
considered a "scientific" theory. But how many Jewish, Muslim, or
atheist believers are there?
reply: I don't know how many Jews or Muslims believe in "scientific creationism," but I know how many atheists do.
This is in contrast to the rest of the body of scientific theories and
discipline. You don't have to be any religious persuasion to believe in
the laws of gravity, or of thermodymics, etc. But I would be surprised
(no, flabbergasted!) to see any non-Christian believe in a creationist
point of view.
--Mike Coldewey
20 Nov 1996
Your article about Creation Science was thought provoking but a bit
contradictory. I was initially struck by your inclination to separate
"Scientists" from "Creationists", ignoring the fact that hundreds (if not
thousands) of creationists are scientists (i.e. Ph.D's) and well versed in
the rules of science. But on further reflection I was pleased with the
distinction because it was (cleverly) drawn right along religious lines,
reflecting the source of each group's bias.
reply: we aim to please! and be clever, too.
At one point you state that "No biologist has ever been led to doubt that evolution has occured." This is patently false and there are many examples, Dr. Gary Parker being among the most prominent. I highly recommend a book he co-authored with Dr. Henry Morris on the subject called "What Is Creation Science?" In fact I dare say that any biologist reading this book with an open mind will be stunned by the crippling nature of the problems with evolution and the compelling evidence for special creation.
reply:I hope these biologists are fairer than you are in their arguments. You've taken my words out of context. What I write is that "through all the debate over evolutionary mechanisms no biologist has been led to doubt that evolution has occurred." I don't say that there aren't any people who are biologists and who are creationists. My words occur while discussing the view of Stephen Jay Gould that biologists are debating how evolution occurred, not whether it occurred.
You quote Gould as saying the "An idea which is certain cannot be empirically tested" and is therefore pseudoscience. This is the same Gould whom you quoted earlier in the article discussing the "FACT of evolution" and "the How (not the IF) of evolutionary mechanisms." Evolution clearly falls under the catagory of "Certain" in Dr. Gould'd eyes.
reply: Gould knows the difference between a metaphysical claim put forth dogmatically as absolutely certain and an empirical fact which the evidence overwhelmingly supports belief in, though we may use the word 'certain' in both cases, we don't mean the same thing. . Gould doesn't equivocate like some people I could mention.
You further state that Creation Science:
1) Engenders no debate about the fundamental mechanisms of the universe. How about these: The 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics which state that matter and energy don't arise out of nothing (in other words, they are either "eternal" or they were "created") and that all systems tend towards maximum chaos. Yet in light of this second law we are being asked to believe that all matter and energy began in the highest state of chaos imaginable (the Big Bang) and somehow organized itself into the highly complex and structured universe that we now observe, complete with life forms. If you believe this then you are not the true skeptic that you claim to be. In fact your faith surpasses that of any Christian I know.
reply: If you think this gibberish is intelligible and intelligent then your appraisal of my faith is not worrisome.
2) Makes no testable predictions. This is also grossly incorrect (please see "What Is Creation Science", referenced above). Just one example would be that creationism predicts the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record and in fact this is what we observe. All species appear in the fossil record fully formed and with no ancestors, outrageous claims regarding "Lucy" et al. not withstanding.
reply: I should have known that this great science would predict the absense of something!
There are many other issues to discuss on this fascinating topic but they will keep for another time. Thank you for this forum.
Aubsie@aol.com
reply: I'm glad you find this topic fascinating, but please, keep those other burning issues for as long as you want.