NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/origins/16733

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-25 | 5.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!sgigate!odin!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
From: [e-mail] (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Who does Phillip Johnson think the creationists are?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Jan 93 00:34:13 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: sgi
Lines: 139
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
|> > Are creationists individuals who seek positive scientific evidence for
|> > their story of creation?  Or are they those who seek negative evidence
|> > for the currently accepted scientific view of origins (i.e.,
|> > evolution)?
|>
|> Both.
|>
|> > Phrased another way, are creationists merely critics of common
|> > descent, or do they actually posit a scientific theory supported by
|> > substantial scientific evidence?
|>
|> Creationism relies on the assumption that God exists and was insrumental in the
|> origin of the universe and everything in it.

That says nothing one way or another about evolution.   He might have
created the atoms, or further back caused the Big Bang, and I don't
think anyone would say that this invalidates any evolutionary theory.

|>                                          Evolution, on the other hand,
|> relies on the assumption that He doesn't exist,

Bzzzt!  Wrong.   Where does it say so?   Who says this?

|>                                              or if He does, He doesn't
|> interfere with the natural processes of the universe.  Neither of these
|> assumptions have been proved to be valid.

That's fine.    We don't "prove" things like this.   We just look at the
evidence that is, and fit models to it.

|>                                             Yet the assumption made is crucial
|> to the interpretation of the data.

No, the assumption is *explicit*.    When a Scientist measures anything,
and fits a model to it, he is always using the assumption that God didn't
fiddle with things.


|>                          No one has disproved God's existence, so I
|> see no reason to prefer one view over the other (from a scientific viewpoint
|> that is).

Then I certainly hope you are consistent.   I hope that you have an equal
willingness to believe that nuclear powerstations don't really work, and it's
just God making the little atoms go bangity-bangity.

|>
|> There are, in fact, institutions dedicated to Creation Science Research.

There's also an Institute dedicated to Cheese Powered Time Travel.   I
just founded it.   Of course, we're not real active right now, but give
us thirty years, or three thousand, and we'll have heaps of stuff done.

|>
|> The "Pre-Cambrian Explosion" is a term used to describe the sudden formation of
|> life on Earth.

No it's not.

|>  This suddenness supports Creationism.

How?   Explain in detail.

|>                                                 The fossil record shows
|> sudden "changes" in animals.  This supports Creationism.

How?   Explain in detail.   For that matter, explain "sudden".

|>                                                    There are thousands
|> of cases where people have been miraculously healed of ailments (only after
|> praying to God to be healed).  This supports the theory that God exists, and
|> therefore, Creationism.

How about the cases where people had remissions *without* praying to God.
Yeah, don't tell me.   Doesn't count.

|> I'm not sure I understand the question.  They are scientists who happen to be
|> Christians (although some people like Kalki are not Christian).  A specific
|> example would be Thomas Barnes.  He has written a mainstream textbook on
|> electricity and magnetism.

Then you really didn't understand the question.

|>
|> > Are there
|> > any scientific claims made by creationists that have not been
|> > falsified, and what are they?
|>
|> Yes.
|>      1. God's existence.  Some may believe this is unscientific, but I argue
|> that it has a profound impact on scientific thought.

How about that for a non-sequitur.   Adolf Hitler also had an effect
on Scientific thought: we'll never believe that crap again.

|>      2. Non-constant speed of light (although I for one don't beleive this is
|> central to Creationism).

Or true, even.   Nicely evaded, though.   Is figure skating part of a
Creationist's training?   Sure seems like it.

Apropos, I think we did disprove this one.   Would you like me to
email the FAQ to you?

|>      3. Non-constant decay rates (I'll try to get a list of secular sources
|> that actually show that the decay constants of radioactive substances can
|> change).

Thirty years on, and they're still saying "I'll get a list of sources".

|>
|> There are probably more, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Proof by " There are probably more, but I can't think of any off the top of
my head."   Always a favourite.

|>
|> >
|> > Maybe Phillip Johnson does not care who the creationists are.  Maybe
|> > he feels that "naturalistic" explanations for the development or
|> > emergence of life are inadequate and that the study of life should not
|> > fall under the purview of science.
|> >
|> > Whatever the case, it would be nice to know the answers.
|>
|> Naturalistic explanations are all well and good if there is no God.  I have yet
|> to see His existence disproven.  Thus naturalistic explanations are, for the
|> time being, inadequate.

Not to mention purple cows on Venus.   Also not proven not to exist, which
is just as well, since they secretly run the banking syste.   References to
the federal Resever System simply are not adequate without a clear disproof
of the purple cows.

Yeah, Johnson is right.   It's just browbeating all day long.   Doo-da.

jon.