NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/origins/16915

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!tdat!tools3!swf
From: [e-mail] (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Who does Phillip Johnson think the creationists are?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Jan 93 00:08:59 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit
Lines: 77

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
|>   Evolution, on the other hand,
|> relies on the assumption that He doesn't exist, or if He does, He doesn't
|> interfere with the natural processes of the universe

... or that He operates in such a manner that the methods used by science
cannot detect Him. (For instance, he might jsut be so consistant in his
activities that they resemble natural 'laws' to scientists).

This whole thing is a false dichotomy, based on a serious misunderstanding
of what science is.

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

Unfortunately, they seme ot spend most of thier time collecting quotes out
of context, and precious little time doing actual research.

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

Oh, really sudden, NOT.  The boundary layers between the Cambrian and Cambrian
are several meters thick in many places, and represent several *million* years.
The diversity of complex life forms increases gradually over this entire
interval.

And then, when you add the major Precambrian laggerstaetten (mass death sites),
such as at Ediacara, you get glimpses of an even older array of forms that predate
the Cambrian Explosion by over 10 million years.

This is sudden?

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

Again, this is a matter of definitions.  When a paleontologist says something
happened suddenly he means it took less than a million years.

For this to support Creationism it would have to be *alot* shorter than that.
|>
|> > 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.

It is still not a 'scientific question', since it is not falsifiable in any
manner whatsoever.  So, no matter what its *impact* on science might be, it
remains either a religious or a philosophical question.  (At least until
some means of checking on it is developed).

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

Nor is it true.  The data on which it is based is badly flawed.
The detailed analyses of its flaws have been posted many times, and anyone
with any real training in statistics can spot them *without* being told.
[The statistical `techniques' used in this so-called study violate most of
the basic principles of proper use of statistics].

|> Naturalistic explanations are all well and good if there is no God.

Or if God chooses to work through, or in the form of, nature.

|>  I have yet
|> to see His existence disproven.  Thus naturalistic explanations are, for the
|> time being, inadequate.

But, since his existance is theoretically untestable, and his existance is
*not* inconsistant with naturalistic explanations, there is no reason to
allow this to have any effect whatseoever.

--
[e-mail]            (formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
[e-mail]