++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ (C) Copyright 1991 by the Religion & Ethics RoundTable of GEnie. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted to not-for-profit groups to print this in its entirety AS IS provided that this notice is included: To sign up for GEnie, follow these steps: 1. With your computer and modem, dial 1-800-638-8369 2. When you connect, type HHH and press the RETURN key 3. The computer will respond U#= 4. You respond by typing the following: XTX99669,GENIE 5. Now answer the questions on the screen and you will be able to use GEnie the next working day. Have your credit card or checking account number handy. ======================================================== ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 81 Tue Apr 04, 1989 WALTER at 22:02 EDT Arminius, the following is a slightly edited version of one of the points I think you were making in your March 31 append. I do not want to set up "straw men" to knock down, so if it is not a fair statement, please rephrase it. The rest of this note assumes it correctly reflects your belief: "...Creationsism [predicts] that no transitional forms will ever be found...That prediction has proven correnct... the fossil record [contains no] transitional forms." There are 2 ways this argument is invalid. In the first place, a statement that an event will NEVER happen cannot be verified, only falsified if and when the event does occur. Even if no fossilized transitions had been found, that does not verify the statement they will NEVER be found. Depending on the ammount of effort expended and the expected likelyhood of dectecting them (if they exist), some measure of their IMPROBABILITY could be determined based on not finding one. (For example, lower bounds on certain masses are being estimated in physics by the fact that over ever-increasing periods of time no proton has been seen to decay). The second error is that fossil evidence DOES exist. Therefore creationism has been falsified. Since we hold two contrary views on this point - you, that no such evidence exists, and I that it does - the only way to resolve this difference is to look at every purported piece of evidence and have you refute each one. Since there are thousands of reported cases in many refereed journals, we cannot do all of that here. Let me propose that you take a look at one or two of them, the submit your refutation to the journal from which the publications come, and here on the BB. I assure you that if your counter arguments are correct, they would be quickly published by the journals in question, all of which hunger to break new ground. If, on the other hand, you do not feel qualified to review them, please refrain from repeating suppositions based on ignoring the evidence. Let me suggest: Stenzel, H. B., Successional Speciation in Paleontology, EVOLUTION, v3., pp. 34-50, 1949 ROss, C., and Ross, J., Pennsylvanian and Permian rugose corals; Journal of Paleontology, v.36, pp.1163-1188, 1962. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 82 Tue Apr 04, 1989 CHES at 21:05 CDT No, Armenius2, I did not say "the problem is not that the appropriate isomers cannot be synthesized in the lab." I said "the problem is not that the appropriate isomers cannot be synthesized". As I read it, this is a direct denial of your statement in message 66 that "the isomers in protein amino acids and nucleic acid sugars would not plausibly have arisen in a primordial soup." However, in re-reading my message 72, I now see that the message was not as clear as I had originally thought. So let me try to restate the major point I was trying to make: In recent messages you have stated that creationists claim scientific arguments exist which conflict with the possibility that isomers of certain biological molecules could be created in a "primordial soup." It is my contention that nothing in the fields of physics, chemistry, biochemistry, or molecular biology conflicts with the possibility that life arose from natural means (ie, in full accord with the laws on nature) on the early earth. One problem here is that your statements don't leave me with a clear and precise picture of exactly what the creationists' argument is. In message 72 I made an effort to guess at what you were trying to say. Instead of guessing, let me ask you directly. Is the creationist argument that (a) amino acids, or (b) l-amino acids, or (c) proteins constructed entirely from l-amino acids, couldn't have arisen from the "primordial soup". In other words, just what is this "theoretical difficulty" you are alluding to. If you could clarify this it would help a lot. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 83 Tue Apr 04, 1989 CHES at 22:09 CDT I was under the impression that two intermediate forms of Therapsida have been discovered that have DOUBLE jaw joints - one composed of the bone that is found in mammalian jaws, and the other consisting of the bones that eventually became the hammer and anvil of the mammalian ear. But I am not an expert in this area and defer to a paleontologist. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 85 Wed Apr 05, 1989 NPC.ARCHIVES [Paul Chernof] at 20:34 EDT Lots of stuff to read here since I last visited. Let me try to address a few points while on-line. j. Similarity in structure does not develop independently. While structures might seem similar, there are tests used which have proved many so-called similarities. Arthur Koestler had his head handed to him over many of his claims of similarity between life evolved in Australia and elsewhere. In evolution the most sophisticated statistical methods are used in comparing bones. The standards used are rigid and have been used widely. What may look like a similarity on the surface can easily turn out to be very different under a little scrutiny. For example, the Panda's thumb is not at all related to our opposible thumb. d. As to the textbook reference. Most textbook writers are very ignorant about what they write about, and they are scared witless about offending anyone, thus the disclaimers when it comes to evolution. I have voiced opinions on the subject of textbooks in the past. Gould has pretty much answered (many times) the questions posed about transitional finds. He (and others) offended the establishment when they pointed out that transitional finds are rare by definition. Unless one assumes that evolution is a gradual process (which reflects more about our cultural biases than the fossil record) transition would occur in a geologically short span of time. Also, you could always claim that there must be transitional forms between any two fossil groups; you have arguement ad surdium by always stating "and what was the transitional group between those 2 transitional groups." h. You create a hypothetical situation and tell us the results. yet this situation has not occurred. What is your point, except to show your distrust of people involved in evolution (which includes most biologists)? ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 86 Thu Apr 06, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 23:50 PDT CONCERNING THERAPSIDS The structure of the lower jaw is the reason why Therapsids are classified as reptiles and not mammals. They are not mammals, but a transitional form between mammals and reptiles. That is what we were discussing, was it not? As a matter of fact, the articulation of the lower jaw is a diagnostic characteristic used by paleontologists to differentiate between mammal-like reptiles and primative mammals. What you neglected to mention was that the in Therapsids, the dentary bone is much larger than in other reptile groups. The other bones forming the jaw are much smaller. The quadrat and articular bones are greatly reduced in size. In one group of late Jurrasic Therapsids, the Ictidosaurs, there is a double articulartion of the jaw- one reptile like (quadrate-articular- squmosal) and one mammal-like (dentary-squamosal). In the Ictidosaurs, dentary composes some 99% of the bulk of the lower jaw (in mammals, the lower jaw consists of the dentary alone). The other bones, including those of the reptilian joint, are greatly reduced in size. Therapsids have heterdont teeth (teeth differentiated into incisors, canines, molars and premolars). Some, such as the Ictidosaurs, have a zygomatic arch- an important mammalian characteristic because it indicates a reorganization of the jaw musculature (reptiles use teeth and jaws for holding onto prey, but not for chewing. The zygomatic arch, together with the heterodonty, indicate that this was not the case for therapsids.) The limbs of therapsids have been brought under the body, rather than splayed out to the side, making them more like mammals than modern reptiles or dinosaurs. This gives them the ability to move faster and may indicate that like some dinosaurs and like the crocidles today, they are warm-blooded. To be sure, there are many features of Therapsids that are reptilian. The point is that they ARE reptiles, transitional to early mammals. They compare favorably to some of the earlier mammals, like the Docodonta, Symmetrodonta and especially the Multituberculata. Now, onto another charge. Arminius claims that after a million years of observation, no macroevolutionary change has been observed. First of all, I would have to wonder how old he is, to have been around a million years to search for this. Darwin published in 1859. At most, biologists have been looking for such changes about 130 years. Yet, in order to verify such a change, a species would have to be singled out for study and then observed in nature (as creationists would hardly credit laboratory evidense) for several thousand years before any such evidense could be forthcoming. To my knowledge, no such study has been undertaken. Given the nature of funding in academica, it is unlikely that such a project could be kept going that long. The experiments refered to on fruit-flies and E. coli were not done to induce macroevolutionary change. They were done to study how variation arises and is transmitted. Creationist accept what they call microevolution, since it is changing "within a kind," but reject macroevolution. When opposing hypotheses are discussed, they see it as some sort of flaw. What they are seeing is how science works. In reality, microevolutionary and macroevolutionary changes arise from the same mechanisms. The distinctions made by creationists are meaningless and reflect a fundamental ignorance of modern evolutionary theory. New organs do not spring-up. Completely new structures are rare in the history of life on earth. Instead, existing structures are modified to new ends. This is a process of slow, gradual change. This brings us to Arnimius's revival of the old watchmaker arguement, his discussion of the organ of Corti- the structure that registers individual frequecies of sound and translates them into nevous impulses. This structure, plus the movement of the old reptilian quadrate and articular bones into the mammalian inner ear, causes him to doubt evolution, and to assert that creationists offer a more scientific explaination. We must ask ourselves which explaination makes the most sense and which is truely opperating within the realm and restrictions of science. Explaination #1: An intelligent creator designed and constructed such organs and indeed, all the major "kinds" of organisms. Explaination #2: All life has a common origin and all of the wonderous structures came about by mechanisms still in operation today. To my mind, only one of this, the second, can be considerd a scientific explaination. Creationism has a built in escape clause- divine intervention, to explain all those nasty enigmas. Science cannot appeal to supernatural agencies. Therefore, any "theory" that makes such an appeal cannot be considerd scientific. Evolutionary theory unifies biology in a way that no other single theory can. It explains so much, has withstood so many tests, that it will be difficult to disprove. This brings me to my final point. Science cannot prove any proposition beyond doubt. Science can affirm a theory or disprove it, but it can never set up any idea to a status that it cannot be challanged. Falsifible means it can be disproven, not proven. Thus, all science is forensic science, by your definition. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 87 Sun Apr 09, 1989 ARMINIUS2 at 20:01 EDT P. Nichols, I have learned that the Creation Research Society (not ICR) has recently published an article on the Therapsid Reptile issue. I will try to obtain that and upload the main ideas. Heads I win Tails you lose? I too see the need for science to look for the natural laws, but I see no need to exclude the obvious in the name of science. Intelligent design is the obvious alternative to evolution. But, your definition of science is the same thing as saying science cannot consider the alternative. What good is a science like that? A science that can not consider the obvious alternatives? Under your definition, science is FORCED by dogma to make the evidence fit evolution! Why? Because you have forbidden it to look at the alternatives. Your definition of science is just another form of the old saying, "Heads I win tails you lose!" Suppose two people find a watch. The first finder says the watch is obviuosly the result of intelligent design because of the well ordered movement of the hands, the protective dust casing etc. The second finder says we can only appeal to the mechanism inside the watch to explain its origin. Anything else would not be scientific. By so doing the second finder makes it impossible for himself to ever be proved wrong, since now it is impossible to find any other explanation. This does not mean I am backing off and now saying Evolution is not falsifiable. It means your definition of science (if adopted) would make evolution incapable of falsification. Isn't it strange that Evolutionists have said science can only examine the things which are falsifiable, and then you turn around and define science in such away that Evolution cannot be falsified by it! Oh sure, there would be plenty of discussion as to how it occurred, but it would always be necessary to presume it did. Empirical Science vs. Forensic Science Changing the subject, you say all science is forensic by my definition. Not correct. A forensic science is one that (like macro evolution) is not capable of observation or is not repeatable in an experiment. Empirical science is testable, observable and repeatable; forensic science is not. The theory of Electricity is an empirical science, but the theory of Macro Evolution is a forensic science. Is it not obvious? Progress requires concession I feel you are in a position to concede that Macro-Evolution is a forensic non- testable science, but you have yet to agree to this point. The same thing applies to the issue of whether Creationism is falsifiable or not. You have yet to clarify your agreement, or give a reason for disagreement. Arminius2 ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 88 Sun Apr 09, 1989 ARMINIUS2 at 20:03 EDT Walter, The existence of macro-transitional forms (if they exist) would falsify only the anti-evolutionary portion of Scientific Creationism. But, it is too cumbersome to keep saying "the anti-evolutionary portion of Creationism" so I have abbreviated from time to time by simply saying "Creationism". If you allow that distinction in your definition of my position you will have accurately defined it. Of course, transitional forms would NOT disprove intelligent design. In fact, highly organized and complex macro-transitional changes (if they exist) would IMPLY intelligent design. I find it lamentable that Ches has been unable to find any indication of a divine creator in the world around him (#73). But, that is a different argument altogether. For now you have claimed the existence of "thousands" of transitional forms. You also seem to think that I should study all of them before making a comment on them. Not correct. For the level of discussion we are pursuing here, it is just as well that I quote from experts who have studied them, and base my suppositions on that. I feel it is too early for you to expect a concession on the existence of transitional forms. Also, it would be impossible for me to address a thousand at once. Try something more practical like one at a time. Anyway, the quotes below cause me to doubt the veracity of your statement, and for the moment I am still researching the Therapsid reptile issue. "The EXTREME RARITY of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is INFERENCE, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils" (Stephen Jay Gould May 1977 Natural History pg 14.) "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of plyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition..." (Steven Stanley Macro-Evolution: Pattern and Process pg 39) "In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, APPEAR IN THE RECORD SUDDENLY and are not led up to by known gradual completely continuous transitional sequences." (the Major Features of Evolution by G.G. Simpson pg 360) (emphasis mine) These quotes come from ICR reference material so I do not have the source documents. It is not necessary for one to use a fact the same way his opponent does. If it is a fact for Mr.Gould that "the rest is inference" then it is a fact I can use as well. It is true Mr. Gould uses the gaps to support Punctuated Equilibrium. But, there is no reason Creationists cannot use the same gaps to support "Punctuated Creation" instead. Arminius2 ---------- ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 89 Sun Apr 09, 1989 ARMINIUS2 at 20:06 EDT Ches, I see no difference between saying the isomers were synthesized "in the lab" or saying the isomers were "synthesized" (not mentioning the lab). In either case they are still performed in the lab. So why sound the alarm? The experiments done in the lab lack realism. I will be paraphrasing from "Adam and Evolution" by Michael Pitman pg 140-142. 1. The experiments utilize a cold trap which protects the resulting products from the destructive effects of the electrical discharge zone. In a real world soup that protection would not be available, especially when you consider the harmful zone which a bolt of lightning would produce. 2.Living proteins are based on L-Form amino acids. The problem is that the amino acids produced by discharges of electricity in lab soups produce both L and D form amino acids. In a realistic scenario there appears to have been no process whereby the L and D forms would have become sufficently isolated from each other so that L-form proteins could form. 3. A real world primordial soup would not have been able to isolate reactive end products from each other as is done in the lab. And, if the right concentration of organic materials did occur there was no way to keep them from degrading into non biological reactions as soon as they were formed. 4. If life had emerged from a primordial soup or if it had been near the top of the soup, it would have been destroyed by ultra violet radiation as the ozone layer then would have offered too little protection. 5. A primordial soup would have been too diltue to produce the polymers or chain molecules which form living material. Religious Accidentalism? Professor Wichramasinghe (at the Arkansa trial) pointed out that the odds for life beginning by itself, and then developing to its present state would be about the same for a tornado going through a junkyard and producing a Boeing 707! It is not science, but faith that causes the Evolutionist to believe in a self regulating process that began with chemicals in a soup and worked upwards (by itself to produce both you and I. Of course I suppose it is alright for one to believe all this occurred by chance, but then it is merely belief. In fact, it is just as much a matter of faith as is religious creationism. Evolution is nothing more than religious Accidentalism set forth as a scientific theory. In view of that, equal time for Creationism should be given. Creationism is a far more rational explanation for the complexity of living organisms than the accidentalism of Evolution. You said earlier that you would love to see some evidence of a divine creator. Is it not all around you? "Was the eye contrived without skill in optics and the ear without knowledge of sounds" Sir Isaac Newton "...beyond the intricate mechanisms of the human eye lie breathtaking glimpses of a master plan" Sir Charles Sherrington "Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceeding minute, to a point where it is insensibly different from zero" Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Wickramasinghe "To involve purpose is in the eye of the biologists the ultimate scientific sin...The revulsion which biologists feel to the thought is therefore revulsion to the concept that biology might have a connection to a higher intelligence than our own" Ibid The evidence for intelligent design abounds. And, the accidentalism of the primordial soup scenario is not up to the task of explaining it. Arminius2 ------------ ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 90 Sun Apr 09, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 23:02 PDT Arminius, You yourself have outlines at least two situations in which evolution becomes falisifible. Your continued assertion to the contrary is just another example of creationist double-speak. If modern mammalian fossils were found, say, in Precambrian rocks, that would falisfy evolution. There would be no way to explain it. If no transitional forms existed at all, that would also falsify evolution. If anyone were to find convincing evidense of hydrolyic sorting (the hypothesis proposed by creationists to explain the fossil record) then that too would falsify evolution. If the immuniological distance between humans and apes were the same as between humans and horses, then that would falsify evolution. How do you falsify the idea of intelligent design? You cannot. C Creationism has built within it an escape clause. You cannot falsify the central concept of intelligent design. Science cannot make appeals to the supernatural to explain. Any system o of ideas or beliefs that does cannot be scientific. That is not my definition of science, it is one accepted by Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Ernst Nagel and other philosphers of science. Science deals with NATURAL phemomenia and must operate within the realm of the NATURAL. That definition was not proposed to keep creationists out, but to limit the domain of science to those areas in which the scientific method is applicable. If you are going to start submitting religion to scienctific test, you are in trouble. But why should you? Religion draws its wisdom from a different source and uses a different methodology. I see no need to cast either aside. Rather, they operate within different object domains of knowledge. It is you who seek to impose a conflict where one does not exist. Finally, your insistance on the term forensic: Forensic (adj) 1) belonig to, used in or suitable to courts of judicature or to public debate. 2) ARGUMENTATIVE, RHETORICAL. Evolution is not a mear rhetorical exercise, but an attempt to explain and test ideas concerning the history of life on earth. Evolution is not a rhetorical science, much as you would like to believe otherwise. By the way,the article you mentioned on Therapsids- don't waste your time. I have read it and have already disposed of its main points in my previous posting. Repeating its twisted logic, distortions and fictions will not make them come true. Yes, I have read it already. Tell me, have you ever seen a therapsid fossil? ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 91 Mon Apr 10, 1989 ARMINIUS2 at 23:32 EDT P.Nicholls, You seem to think I am backing off on my earlier concession that Evolution is falsifiable. I am not. Evolution is falsifiable. I am not saying Evolution cannot be falsified, I am saying your definition of science would make it incapable of falsification. You ask how one can falsify the idea of intelligent design. I don't think it can be falsified. But, then again how can one falsify Accidentalism when your definition of science won't allow them to adopt any other alternative! They certainly cannot adopt intelligent design because you have already ruled that out for them! Actually, I feel the most scientific approach is to utilize a process of elimination. If we compare both Accidentalism and Intelligent Design to the evidence, which explains the evidence the best? If Intelligent design fits the evidence best then why do you insist on defining science to exclude it? Furthermore, if Accidentalism does not adequately explain the evidence, why do you define science in such a way it must teach it! I submit to you that something is radically wrong with your definition of science! *********************** You ask if I have ever seen a therapsid reptile. No. Only drawings. But, with a few exceptions, my arguments were not my own. My role was to relay the arguments of others who have the expertise. So, I don't think you can minimize my responses a whole lot, though I suppose you can some. In fact, I will minimize my previous responses for you. Folks, my responses were only shadows of what might have been said by the Creation Scientists I borrowed my ideas from. If I have done poorly it was because I represented them poorly. If I have done well at all it is because their strength held me up. Arminius2 ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 92 Wed Apr 12, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 00:20 PDT Arminius, If you want to falsify evolution, you have only to produce any of the situations you suggest. Find dinosaur and human footprints side by side, find a modern mammal in precambrian rock, find some discontinuity in the genetic structure of organisms on this planet. Your first say evolution is falsifible, then you say it cannot be falsified. You are not making your position clear. Science is, basically, what scientists do. When you get right down to it, that's what science is. The Center for Creation Research does not do science. The results of their work are not pulished in any peer reviewed scientific journals. They rely on the general public's ignorance of science and when inconsistancies are pointed out to them, they are ignored. I can listyou no less than 10 books in which biologists, paleontologists and geologists have taken the evidense presented by creationists and reviewed it. Yet, dispite this, the same arguements keep appearing: the thermodynamic argument, the gaps in the fossil record arguement, the design arguement, etc., all appear in one form or another unaffected by critique. That is not science. That is a deliberate attempt to mislead and misinform. I have defined science as a methodology that investigates natural phenomenia by means of gathering data, forming hypotheses and testing hypotheses. A one must be able to make predictions based on a hypothesis, predictions concerning the results of those activities that verify hypothesis. The body of theories know as Evolution have followed this course. Creationism forms a hypothesis prior to any gathering of data, based upon the perception that this aspect of biology violates deeply felt spiritual values. Creationists then do not look for data to confirm their hypothesis, but seek to cast doubt on evolution, feeling that creationism must win by default. All of the fossil, biochemical, embryological and anatomical evidense suggests that all life has a common origin. There exists no evidense for a contrary position at this time. I have asked you to present this evidense and you have responded only by attacking evolution. I am sorry if these ideas upset you. Now I am going to tell you something else. I too have deeply held spiritual values. I do not see an active creator, but rather an embodyment of nature that when contemplated, is very moving. You are attempting to bring god into science. I say that one cannot have direct experience of god through science, but rather through a contemplation of the deeper emaningof science, of first causes. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 93 Wed Apr 12, 1989 DRMIKE at 17:25 EDT ARMINIUS, Why do you refuse to accept the possibility that evolution was the mechanism used by God to create life on earth? That is accepted by most mainstream religions today. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 94 Wed Apr 12, 1989 MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P] at 22:29 EDT Arminius, you seem to understand that proof has nothing to do with science, and that when an experiment is devised to test a theory, the best result that can be hoped for is that the experiment will fail to falsify the theory. 'Scientific' creationism is based on the premise that a creator exists. Since there is no way to devise an experiment that can disprove the existence of a creator, the entire foundation that 'Scientific' creationism rests on an unscientific theory. Until an experiment is devised that test for the existence of a God, how can creationism be called a science? It can't. Teaching creationism as a science is, in my opinion, staggeringly irresponsible, especially in light of the poor scientific education that our students are currently receiving. --Mark ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 96 Thu Apr 13, 1989 ARMINIUS2 at 21:46 EDT P.Nicholls, I shall try to clarify the distinction by giving you a scenario. Let us suppose paleontologists found a fully developed skeleton of modern man in the lower Cambrian level, a level where invertebrates would be expected, but nothing more complex than that. Furthermore, let us suppose this became a common finding (of course I realize it isn't). Would you reject evolution, and if you did, what would you replace it with? I contend you would have nothing to replace Evolution with, therefore you simply would have to find a "natural process" to explain away the difficulty. As I see it, your definition of science results in the following syllogism: YOUR MAJOR PREMISE: Science must always resort to natural explanations MINOR PREMISE (unspoken): Evolution is the only natural explanation possible. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CONCLUSION: Science can only resort to Evolution. Under your definition of science you must make the evidence fit evolution or you must make evolution fit the evidence, but evolution itself is never at risk. ************************** DrMike, I do not reject the possibility, nor does the idea upset me as P.Nicholls suggested. Depending on the evidence, I would even be willing to adopt Theistic Evolution. I would not require ABSOLUTE proof either, only reasonable probability. *********************************** Mark P., I agree the existence of a Creator cannot be falsified by scientific means. However, the question is not whether a Creator exists, it is whether the complexity of biological organisms would be best explained by accidentalism, or by intelligent design. Now, if we decide that the evidence of biological complexity is best explained by intelligent design then we have arrived at the hypothesis of a creator via NATURAL, NON RELIGIOUS means! Furthermore, if you forbid intelligent design in the classroom you not only forbid a "natural" conclusion, you must offer accidentalism in its place. But, accidentalism does not fit the evidence as well as intelligent design does! It is the inferior explanation of the two. Yet, you would give it preference? Scientific nonsense! It is better to work two untestable ideas against each other than to adopt the inferior one of the two, and then let it go unchallenged! Arminius2 ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 98 Sat Apr 15, 1989 MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P] at 10:49 EDT Arminius, in one mesage you imply that lack of transitional forms is evidence for intelligent design, and in another you say that transitional forms if found, (they have) would also be evidence for intelligent design! Talk about 'Heads I win, Tails you loose'! What kind of logic is that?? That's only another way of saying "It was created that way", 'Scientific' creationism's all-purpose escape clause. It's only an easy way out of a tough situation, and doesn't solve anything. 'Scientific' creationism, intelligent design, or what ever you decide to call it, thrives on, and pushes that kind of distorted logic. _THAT_ is why I find teaching it as a _science_ so offensive. When it was discovered that the sun could not be powered by chemical reactions, the scientists of that day could have taken the easy way out and said, "It was created that way", but they didn't. Nuclear physics eventually came up with a better answer, but it still couldn't account for all the energy being produced. Again, they kept at the problem, and eventually effects predicted by Quantum mechanics did account for the energy being produced. Granted, there is still the problem of less neutrinos being detected than predicted, but I assure you, it is being worked on. When measurements of the speed of light in different directions and the failure to accurately predict the orbit of Mercury sank Newtonian mechanics, scientists didn't throw up their hands and say "It was created that way", they came up with the theory of relativity. And remember, Newtonian mechanics had been accepted as 'law' for almost three centuries. If evidence turns up that pulls the rug out from under evolution, (you came up with a senario for that) I guarantee that no scientist is going to give up and say "It was created that way". The new evidence would be carefully considered, and new theories would eventually be formulated. These new theories would be just as falsifiable as Newtonian mechanics, Quantum mechanics, Relativity, the current theory of Evolution, and any other _scientific_ theory you can think of. Science is objective, and has never claimed to be infallible. Creationism is based on the statement "It was created that way" and that statement cannot be falsified. That is an unscientific, subjective statement. How can you call it a natural conclusion when it is nothing other than thinly disguised dogma? There is no senerio that can falsify creationism, but there are senarios that can falsify Evolution. That is why Evolution is a science and creationism is not. I have no problems with creationism being taught in a philosophy or religion class. Not being a science, however, it has no place in a science class even if it is an alternative to evolution. --Mark ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 99 Sat Apr 15, 1989 NPC.ARCHIVES [Paul Chernof] at 14:43 EDT Today's reading of this topic reminded me that "Creation Science" can be seen as blasphemy. We do not exist in a world of perfect design (at least when it comes to living things). The design of animals has a "make do" philosophy about it with lots of room for improvement. Creation Science makes God look like a lousy designer. And it is time to bring in a little information theory. Just to keep this message short, information theory (which came out of Bell labs) supports evolution. The comparison of evolution to a tornado in a junk yard producing a 747 is garbage (excuse the pun). While information theory does not necessarily predict (though its inventory made lots off of applying it to the stock market) it shows mutation to be random but NOT chaotic. Creation Science confuses randomness with chaos. Paul ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 100 Sat Apr 15, 1989 CHES at 21:19 CDT Armenius2, I am really suprised by Michael Pitman's "criticisms" of chemical evolution. His comments suggest to me either that he has a very shallow understanding of the fields of chemical kinetics and kinetic molecular theory, or that he is deliberately trying to deceive non-scientists. Let me explain: First, why does Pitman state (to quote your summary of his claims) that the "harmful zone which a bolt of lightening would produce" would destroy the resulting products (a comment that is echoed in the second sentence of claim number 3). Come on, Armenius2! Any student of chemical kinetics knows that for every forward process there exists a reverse process, and that it is the relative rates of these processes that determine the relative concentrations of the reactants and products at any given time, and that the relative rates of these processes depend on the concentrations. For example, consider the general chemical equation A <-> B. Let's let A stand for the non-biological reactants and B the biological products. At any time the rates of formation of B and A must, by the laws of chemical kinetics, depend on the amounts of A and B present. Hence, if initially [B] = 0 then A MUST initially be converted to B, according to the laws of chemical kinetics. Hence, at any finite time both A and B MUST be present. I can get more mathematical about this one if you'd like, Armenius2. You just let me know. For now, let me say it in common language. YOU CAN'T START DESTROYING PRODUCTS UNTIL SOME PRODUCTS ARE FIRST FORMED. AND THE RATE AT WHICH PRODUCTS ARE DESTROYED DEPENDS ON THEIR CONCENTRATIONS. IF YOU HAVE VERY LITTLE CONCENTRATIONS OF PRODUCTS, THE RATE AT WHICH THEY WILL BE DESTROYED WILL BE SLOW. SO INITIALLY, SINCE YOU HAVE NO PRODUCTS, THE CONCENTRATION OF PRODUCTS MUST INCREASE. Second, why does Pitman claim that cold traps or their equivalents not available in the real world? Nonsense! And I say this based on elementary laws of kinetic molecular theory. For example, let us consider, for the sake of argument, the bolt of lightning that you keep referring to. Before the lightning strikes we have only non- biological reactants. However, when it strikes it creates a mixture of reactants and products. Agree? Then tell me, what happens to the products? If you (or Pitman) is familiar with kinetic molecular theory, then you (or he) would know that they DIFFUSE from the regions in which they are in high concentration (ie, near the lightning bolt) to regions in which they are in low concentration (ie, away from the lightning bolt). Diffusion from regions of high concentration to regions of low concentration is one of nature's cold traps. Is Pitman trying to say that this isn't so? Or is he simply ignorant of the process of diffusion? Or is he trying to mislead people? Third, why is Pitman restricting his discussion to bolts of lightning? Experiment after experiment has shown that just about ANY source of energy can produce biomolecules in an appropriate mix of inorganic chemicals, including shock waves produced by lightning bolts, volcanic explosions, etc. In fact, the shock waves also make very nice "cold traps" in that when a shock wave passes through a region the region initially gets rapidly heated, driving reactions, and then it undergoes rapid cooling, "freezing" the chemical composition at that of the higher temperature. Fourth, I must disagree with your statement that "The problem is that the amino acids produced by discharges of electricity in lab soups produce both L and D form amino acids. In a realistic scenario there appears to have been no process whereby the L and D forms would have become sufficently isolated from each other so that L-form proteins could form." Sorry, Armenius2, but the two forms don't have to be "sufficiently isolated." It is a well-known fact that enzymes can be stereospecific. In fact, the vast majority of biological enzymes are, as are many non-biological catalysts. So, in a mixture of l- and d- amino acids an enzyme specific to l-amino acids will preferentially create proteins made of l-amino acids. Likewise for d-. So you don't need to physically separate the isomers. Stereospecific enzymes and other catalysts will do it for you, even in a racemic mixture! Fifth, the "reactive end products" are not supposed to be isolated from each other, as is so deceptively claimed in number 3. They continue to react to make proteins, DNA, etc, and yes, even life forms - a fact that seems to cause you great emotional stress. Sixth, Pitman's claims about ozone show little, if any, in depth attempt at analysis. Let me ask you the following: (a) Did he take into account that during the chemical evolutionary period the sun was in the latter stages of its own formation? It was estimated to be about half as luminous as today, and cooler. Both of these factors will decrease the intensity of uv radiation emission. (b) DId he look at any of the chemicals that were present in the earth's atmosphere at the time to see if they absorb in the same region as ozone? For example, a quick look through Herzberg's book on polyatomic spectra shows that H2S, HN3, OCS, CS2, etc have absorption bands in regions overlapping ozone's. (c) Does he realize that light undergoes strong Raman scattering in liquid water? The scattering intensity goes as the inverse fourth power of the wavelength. Considering that visible light in a _clear_ ocean only penetrates a hundred feet or so, the uv light that did penetrate the promordial atmosphere would have dissipated _very_ near the surface of the oceans. Seventh, where does Pitman get his information that the primordial soup would have been too dilute to produce large biological molecules? Current estimates are about 10% organics. Also, has he properly taken into account the long times involved in chemical evolution? If so, then what are his upper limits on the concentrations? Has he discounted catalytic processes? And has he taken into account all conditions. For example, it is known that when water mixed with precursors to biological molecules freezes, eutectic mixtures can form in which as little as one molecule in four is water. Again, I ask you, has Pitman done his research correctly, or is he simply trying to deceive the non- scientist? Eighth, "Religious Accidentalism or Creationist Deceit?" Professor Wichramasinghe should know that the statement he made is only valid for an isolated system, and that the earth is anything but an isolated system. It is a well-known fact of non-equilibrium thermodynamics that energy flowing through a molecular system can cause it to organize, ie cause its entropy to decrease. In fact, a scientist named Prigogine received a Nobel Prize for his studies in this area. Are you trying to tell me he was awarded a Nobel Prize for "faith" rather than for his scientific research? Really. By the way, are you trying to claim that Hoyle is a creationist? As far as I know, he has some very strange ideas about the beginning of life on earth, but he works to keep them in line with known science, as opposed to creationists who try to distort science. Perhaps the scientific laws that govern the natural world _will_ ultimately be viewed as evidence for a higher being. A being that created all of the fascinating laws of physics, chemistry, and biology that allowed life to evolve on this planet. ches ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 101 Sun Apr 16, 1989 CHES at 02:06 CDT In my sixth criticism of Armenius2's comments on chemical evolution, the species HN3 should be NH3. Sorry for the typo. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 102 Sun Apr 16, 1989 ARMINIUS2 at 18:28 EDT Mark P, In spite of your disquisitions, it remains true that biological complexity is best explained by the intelligent design hypothesis. It also remains true that you would prefer to throw it out, and substitute an inferior alternative (accidentalism) in its place. That is censorship, not science. I submit to you that your motives are NOT scientific, but social. Also I made it clear from the beginning that transitional forms could only falsify the antievolutionary portions of Scientific Creationism. So, at that point, falsification is possible. As far as intelligent design is concerned, I have already pointed out that it is better to work two untestable ideas against each other than to adopt the inferior one of the two and let it remain unchallenged. You really have said nothing to answer that except that you prefer to continue doing it. If I tried to censor accidentalism THEN I would be using a "Heads I win Tails you lose approach". But, since I wish to work the two ideas against each other the charge is not validly made against me. You, however, say we should throw out the alternative you don't like, and that we can only use an inferior explanation to explain the evidence. You are like the man I described who insists the origin of the watch can only be explained by its internal mechanism, I am the man who said the watch was the result of intelligent design. Arminius2 ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 103 Sun Apr 16, 1989 ARMINIUS2 at 18:30 EDT Ches, Your letter brings the discussion to a new and higher level of technical expertise, one which requires someone more qualified than myself to respond. I will forward a copy of your letter to the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research. Hopefully it will interest them in joining the discussion. I must presume that Mr.Pitman would be quite able to defend himself, but he lives in England so I won't be expecting him to get online. Also, my paraphrase of his arguments might have over simplified them. I am reasonbly sure I presented him accurately although I do have some minor doubt. Fred Hoyle and Professor Wickramasinghe wrote a book together (Evolution From Space) in support of intelligent life from outer space having started evolution on earth. Based on the reviews it APPEARS they argue for Undirected Panspermia, the idea that the earth became infected with genetic materials which were designed somewhere in space, and which drift about the cosmos like pollen in the wind. I am in the process of getting their book, and my earlier quotes were taken from Creationist references. There is no attempt in Creationist writings to portray them as Creationists, but their arguments are well suited to Creationism. In any event, they make a strong argument AGAINST life forming on earth by itself. Arminius2 ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 104 Sun Apr 16, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 17:53 PDT RMINIUS2, Should evidense similiar to that you have described be found, I would have to reject evolution. As for what I would replace it with, that depends on alot of things. I might be forced to conclude that the origin of humans is not a question open to scientific investigation at this time. But such evidense does not exist and the pattern of the history of life on earth suggests that existing life evolved from preexisting life. Evolution, not intelligent design, best explains the complexity of life. Organisms are not perfect creations. They are often patchworks and improvised versions of prexisting forms. What is more, intelligent design fails to explain the following: o The presense of gills in all vertebrate embryos, including humans. o The presense of vestigal organs- the coccyx in humans, non- functional eyes in cave fish, hindlimb bones (unattached and non-functional) in snakes, whales nd dolphins. o Homologous structures- the human hand and the bat's wing which have the same bone count, but in which the bones are of similiar shape, different sized and performing different functions. o The presense of a double jaw articulation in late Therapsid reptiles- one mammal-like and one reptile like. o Fossils of marsupials all over the world, but living marsuipials only in those areas that are not occupied by Eutherian mammals. If life was created or designed, the designer showed a startling lack or originality in many cases. Now let us see. So far, you have presented the following arguements: 1) The Gaps in the Fossil Record upon which it was pointed out that contrary to you 15year old sources and the rantings of Gish and Morris, transitional forms do exists for most all vertebrate forms. 2) The intelligent design arguement well, life is not perfect. 3) The thermodynamic arguement in which you (and Gish and Morris) fail to distinguish between charotic and random and between an open system and closes system. Also an ignorance of what entrophy really is. 4) The evolution is not scientific because it can't be proved arguement In which you were called to task for not understanding the essential difference between science and dogma- that science can be challanged and that nothing can safely be enshired forever. All of these arguements are old and stale. There is nothing new here that has not been presented by the ICR better, and which has not been refuted a dozen times (Try _But is it Science?_ by Michael Ruse or _Science and Creationism_ by Ashley Montique. or for a short treatment, _Monkey Buisness_ by Niles Eldridge). Like all creationists, you rely on a lack of scientific sophistication among those to which you present you distortions. It appears that you were wrong here. I suggest you find something new to discuss, and quit bring in this old, burned-out chestnuts. One more thing. You mentioned earlier that someone's reason for accepting evolution was social and not scientific. THAT took alot of balls. I suggest that your refusal to admit the possiblity of organic evolution is based upon social/religious prejudices and not because you have carefully examined the evidense and found it wanting. You rejected evolution before you ever heard of Therapsids or Th Thermodynamics. Philip A. Nicholls Department of Anthropology San Francisco State University Biology Department Phillip Burton Academic High School San Francisco, CA ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 105 Mon Apr 17, 1989 MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P] at 00:25 EDT Arminius, 1. Yes you are one hundred percent right. My motivations are COMPLETELY social in nature. I feel that since it doesn't fit the criteria for science, intelligent design should not be taught as a science. Our educational system is in very bad shape and teaching a pseudoscience as a science isn't going to help. How anyone with any social conscience can allow this to happen, is beyond me. You may as well teach astrology as a science. 2. Evolution _is_ testable, and has passed many tests. Intelligent design is not testable, and therefore is not a science. Working the two against each other isn't possible because they aren't in the same category. It's like comparing apples and oranges. To quote an essay by James P. Hogan, "The Word Of God Revealed": "The fallacy with the above claim {if evolution cannot be proved beyond question to be fact, then it's just as much a theory as creationism, and if one deserves to be called scientific, so does the other.} is its assumption that all degrees of uncertainty are equal--by the same logic we could argue that since George Washington can't be proved absolutely and conclusively to have existed, then the case for Santa Claus is just as solid." "One of the most important criteria that science demands for a theory to be acceptable as a serious candidate for consideration is that it be unfalsifiable. It was precisely the fact that it *could* be tested and shown to be false that made Newton's a genuinely scientific theory. Whether it ultimately survived or failed the tests is not the point. This is why the contention that "some UFO's might be alien spacecraft" is not answerable by scientific inquiry. Yes, some of them might be, and however many specific instances are shown not to be, the speculation can never be shown to be untrue. It is unfalsifiable. (The inverse theory--that *no* UFO's are alien spacecraft--can very simply be proved untrue, but not by any of the claims submitted to date as evidence.) And creationism is unfalsifiable, since every fact, every new discovery that might be made, any result of any test that might be imagined--can all be dismissed with the assertion that "it was created that way." Hence, even before any debating or appeals to evidence, creationism fails the most basic test. It is not "scientific," and no amount of legal semantic juggling can make it so." 3. I do _not_ wish to censor Intelligent design. I just feel that since it is not a science, it should not be taught in a science class. Please explain to me how Intelligent design can be considered to be a science. --Mark ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 106 Mon Apr 17, 1989 MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P] at 01:12 EDT Phil, sorry to refute your defense of me, but it became a social issue with me when a co-worker saw me reading "In Search Of The Big Bang" by John Gribbin, and accused me of reading a dirty book! It was very funny at the time, but it is a very sorry commentary on our educational system. --Mark (I don't know whether to laugh or cry) ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 107 Mon Apr 17, 1989 MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P] at 21:51 EDT Oops! in my previous message, the line that read "One of the most important criteria that a science demands to be acceptable as serious candidate for consideration as a theory is that it be unfalsifiable", should have read: "One of the most important criteria that a science demands to be acceptable as serious candidate for consideration as a theory is that it be falsifiable." Sorry, it was very late. --Mark ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 108 Sat May 13, 1989 HJOHN at 00:06 EDT Is anyone here acquainted with the research of Robert Gentry and radiohalos? It is rather controversial, I understand. Gentry is a "creation scientist" who has un into trouble with the mainstream scientific establishment over his research. I am in the process of reading his book, "Creation's Tiny Mystery," published by Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, TN, 1988. I'll share some of his views from time to time. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 109 Wed May 17, 1989 E.HAAS at 01:06 EDT What kind of research does Gentry do? ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 110 Fri May 19, 1989 DRMIKE at 17:02 EDT The argument that neither the universe nor life could have occurred by "accident" and thus God is proved always fails to take into account that some OTHER creator (i.e. not the one described in the OT and NT) may have done the work. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 111 Fri May 19, 1989 HJOHN at 22:45 EDT DRMIKE: Can you be more specific about what you mean by "some OTHER creator?" ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 112 Sun May 21, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 01:35 PDT Consider a golfball. If I hit the golfball, it will land somewhere on the goldcourse, most likely on a blade of grass. After hitting the ball, I find it is, indeed, resting atop of a single blade of grass. Now their are millions of blades of grass on the golf course. The odds that my golfball would hit this one blade of grass are very very remote, nearly impossible, I'd say. Yet, there it is. 8s 8 ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 113 Fri May 26, 1989 J.BELL4 [Jabel] at 00:48 PDT Oooooooooh. I have heard the sound of one hand clapping. (Huh?) ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 114 Fri May 26, 1989 HJOHN at 23:08 EDT Robert Gentry is a research physicist who has discovered tiny radioactive particles in Precambrian granites which he claims have such a short half-life that they could not have been formed over millions of years. Rather, according to Gentry, these radioactive particles called radiohalos provide interesting evidence that the earth could actually have been formed over a very short period of time. I will be discussing Gentry's ideas in detail. My information is taken from his book, "Creation's Tiny Mystery," published by Earth Science Associates, Box 12067, Knoxville, TN 37912-0067. IF you write for information about this book, please tell them where you heard about it - right here on the GEnie Religion & Ethics RoundTable! ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 115 Mon Jun 05, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 22:49 PDT Isn't it interesting how such an important discovery is not mentioned in the major scientific journals? Such an important particle should be announced in SCIENCE or NATURE. Yet, nowhere is such an announcement found. We canonclude from this that: 1) ROBERGENTRY has not submitted his results for peer review. 2) ROBERT GENTRY did submit his results, but the establishment scientific press will not print them because: a) they would throw the science of radioactive dating into chaos. b) they were judged the work of a crackpot 3) ROBERT GENTRY is a crackpot. I wonder which of these is true.? ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 116 Tue Jun 06, 1989 HJOHN [Sky Spy] at 23:17 EDT Robert Gentry has published extensively in the scientific literature. A few examples: 1968, "Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive Halos," SCIENCE 160, 670. 1975, "Response to J.H. Fremlin's Comments on 'Spectacle Halos,' NATURE 258,269. 1978, "Are Any Unusual Radiohalos Evidence for SHE?" International Symposium on Superheavy Elements, Lubbock, Texas. New York: Pergamon Press. 1984, "Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division. American Association for the Advancement of Science 1, 38. 1987, "Radioactive Halos: Implications for Creation," Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism," Vol. II, 89. If you are interested in a more complete list, please let me know. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 117 Fri Jun 23, 1989 DRMIKE at 21:13 EDT HJOHN by other creator I mean that while the universe begs to have been "created" as opposed to merely having "happened" that argument does NOT prove that Yahweh/God/Allah was the creator, or that he even exists. The God of the Old/New Testaments and Koran may be a misunderstaning of what the "true" creator really is. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 118 Tue Jul 04, 1989 PHILIP.PRICE at 02:53 EDT Sounds like John got the best of that one. (ie. Someone ASSUMED without Facts to back them up that RObert Gentry was unpublished). Sounds like prejudice to me. Ie. PANICHOLIS Prejudge that Gentry was a crackpot therefore he infered he couldn't have been published in any true scientific journal. Either that or I just infered more sarcasim in his last post than there actually was. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 119 Tue Jul 04, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 11:42 PDT I have been reading SCIENCE and NATURE for the last 10 years, which will explain why I didn't catch Gentry before this. Your posting made it seem as if this were a new development, which of course it is not. I will check the references and get back to you. It appears, though, that these ideas have been dismissed- one of the possiblities mentioned in my previous postings. Not every idea published in SCIENCE or NATURE, indeed, very few of them, stood unchallanged for long. By the way, I listed Gentry as a crackpot as only ONE of several possiblities. Like most people who advocate creationism, you seem to have difficulty including all important facts in a discussion. By the way, could the universe have been created by cosmic bunnies? Well, there is as much evidense for them as creators as for any other entity. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 120 Tue Jul 04, 1989 PHILIP.PRICE at 15:26 EDT Not to get sidetrack by your insult, But I can't believe you didn't want to infer from 'that post' that he was a crackpot. Are you saying then you didn't think him a crackpot? That that wasn't what was foremost in your mind and that it saturated how you phrased that post? Myself since I have not heard of or read anything of or about Gentry I cannot say if he is or is not a crackpot. But I am continually amazed at those who hold so much faith in what they know for 'FACT', that they assume any evidence or theory that disagrees with them must hold no merit. I find most christians more open minded about the limits of our intelligence and the possibilities of them being wrong about some things. Then again they too have faith in something, but it isn't there own infalliability and greatness. Phil ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 121 Sun Jul 09, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 03:31 PDT If you will READ the message again, you will see that I listed several possiblities, one of which was that he was a crackpot. That this is the one possiblity you have focused is beyond me. One possiblity I listed was that Gentry did report his findings, but they have been dismissed for one reason or another. This is indeed the case. In the same issue of NATURE, several letters point out some of the errors in Gentry's intepretation of the data. (Odd, these references were not listed with the rest). Please let me get one things straight. This is not a christian vs atheism issue. Science is not atheistic, and evolution is not an equal to atheism. The mast majority of organized religions on this planet have come to terms with evolution. This is an issue of science vs non-science. Creationist constantly pick at evolution as if they assume that if they can disprove evolution, they somehow prove creationism. That is not how science works. When I or anyone else attack creationism, we are not attack religion. We are attacking pseudoscience. No matter how many creationist arguements critiques you dispose of, they always seem to have one more ready. It is like the story of the little boy shoveling horse manure believing that their is a pony down their somewhere. Creationism has no scientific standing. It's proponents are not biologist or anthropologists- they are engineers (usually, they have no scientific training at all). It is therefore not surprizing that many of them have no concept of what science really is. [Please, this is not an attack on engineers. It is simply a statement of fact. Engineers are not research biologists. Would you trust you life to a computer engineered by a biologist? ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 122 Sun Jul 09, 1989 PHILIP.PRICE at 21:02 EDT Phil, I agree with most (99.88%) of what you said in your last post. Though I must say that many engineers are scientist(even us Computer scientist ;). My father who is a leading Human Factors expert, and has numerous published papers I would consider a scientist and one who follows the scientific method in all his research. (For anyone who wonders what human factors is, it's a branch of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research). Actually somone in my field (Computer Science) has a lot of reasoning, logic, deduction, reduction , math etc training, but no formal scientific method training (at least without having taken electives in other fields). While certain engineers do have it. But all of this is besides the point( I never liked the I'm a scientist and your not arguments). What is important is do people truely follow the scientific METHOD, not if they call themselves a scientist. A book concerning this and written by a professor in chemisty, a self-claimed skeptic, non-creationist, but 'believer in the scientic method' is called Origins A skeptic's guide to the creation of Life on earth By Robert Shapiro. Published by Bantam New Age Books {Ugh! I dislike 'New age'! :) } I am sure someone has already mentioned (and probably since it is over 30 years old, has found many a rebuttle for) a book called 'The Genesis Flood, The biblical record and it's sccientific implications' By John C. Whitcomb and Henry Morris. Published by Baker Book House. Anyone have other books that they particulary like and dislike? (I have numerous others but wouldn't want to bore you all :) Phil (Hey there are more than one person named Phil here, perhaps we are clones ! [Just joking]} ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 123 Tue Jul 11, 1989 ASGARD [DBALTZ] at 21:31 MDT "Back off Ma'am! I'm a scientist!" Dr. Peter Venkman in 'Ghostbusters' Please excuse me if I'm not humbled by the attempts to classify engineers as bumbling inventors who couldn't care less about Truth. I'm not humbled because the accusation comes from a so-called scientist, whose definition of science seems to be: a man who subscribes to 'Nature', works at a university, writes papers, and ridicules any of his colleagues theories with whom he disagrees politically or theologically. A very open-minded definition, wouldn't you say? I have said before that it is not the scientists and their theories that are the threat, but the pseudo-scientists who actually 'believe' the theories and speak of them as fact. Anyone who dismisses the possibility that some 'universal constants' may actually not be constants at all, I would hardly call a scientist. He is a closed-minded child ... and even an engineer can see that. dB ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 124 Fri Jul 14, 1989 PHILIP.PRICE at 21:01 EDT I agree. Phil (Who has been darn agreeable lately ;) ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 125 Wed Jul 19, 1989 GM at 15:59 EDT The fact remains that it's not a science or scientific fact if it can't be measured. And what does that mean? (beats me, grin) Actually, to be serious a moment: It has always seemed to me that Creationism is an attempt to circumvent the laws prohibiting the preaching of religion in schools; if it's a science, it can't be "religion," right? That falls right in with the attempts to brand "humanism" as a religion. The plain fact of the matter is, Creationism has always been a religious matter, unseparable from the Christian faith, and is just one more attempt by a religious sect to shove their beliefs down everyone else's throats, whether they want it or not. Such a literal interpretation of the King James bible is amusing to me. Trivia Question: How many Gospels were removed from the New Testament during the Council of Ephesus in the 12th Century AD, and how many members of the Church hierarcy were executed for opposing the] move? Rick ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 126 Thu Jul 20, 1989 J.REPICI at 00:15 EDT Just a note: Most of what's happeneng in the "unified theory" circles these days can't be measured. That is unless someone can build an accelerator the size of the galaxy. John ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 127 Thu Jul 20, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 00:13 PDT Once again (for those of you on drugs), my postings were not attacks on engineers. I have great respect for engineers. When the start talking about biology, they are usually out of their depth, much as I would be if I were to give a lecture on systems analysis. Once gain, this is not a question of one truth being better than another. The question is, is creationism a scientific theory, yes or no. A theory is a framework, something which guides research and determines what que questions are important. A theory must met certain important criteria. It must be falisfiable. It must not rely on causal agents outside the natural world. Creationism fails on both points and for this reason does not belong in a biology classroom. Creationism, as part of the history of science, may be brough-up in an historical context. Creationism is not supported by empirical data. Creationists spend most of their time attacking evolution and little or now time researching creationism. This should tell you something. Creationism cannot act as a guide to research. A good theory raises as many new questions as it answers. Creationism is a dead end. .s ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 128 Fri Jul 21, 1989 HJOHN [Sky Eye] at 01:56 EDT I can hardly agree with your simplistic explanation of Creationism. I think Robert Gentry shows that yes one can believe in Creation and yet study the phenomena in nature which point to indications that their is scientific proof for the Biblical story of creation. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 129 Sat Jul 22, 1989 GM at 10:59 EDT Frankly, just what *is* the proof for Creation? All I ever see from creationists is attempts to debunk evolution, not prove creationism. Rick ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 130 Sat Jul 22, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 09:11 PDT As I think I have pointed out before, proof in science does not exist. No theory can be proven to the point that it cannot be questioned. The longer a theory can stand without being falsified by data, the stronger it becomes. This is why evolution has such a solid place in biology. It has stood for more than a hundred years and has not been disproven. It has been modified and expanded to encompass new findings, something that creationists do not seem to understand. GM, there is no proof for Creation. The main points of creation, however, cannot be falsified (you cannot prove or more importantly disprove the existence of god). This is why it is not a science. Gentry's findings have been disproven. They were disproven in an article in Nature, the same issue mentioned above. If this is what you rest your belief in creationism on (creationism as in "scientific creationism") then you belief still has no standing in the scientific community. Just once I would like to see some compelling evidence for creationism. Something that is not just an attempt to disprove some aspect of evo evolutionary theory. The reason I don't expect to find such evidence is that I have yet to meet or read a creationists who has the first notion of what constitutes scientific theory or scientific evidence. One last thought. Even if you disprove evolution (and it is possible to do that. Find evidence of some advanced life form in precambrian rocks, for example, and you have disprove it.) creationism does not win by default. Creationism must stand scientific review, which it cannot do because its basic premise is flawed. .s ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 131 Tue Jul 25, 1989 MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P] at 18:17 EDT Since the foundation of 'Scientific' Creationism is based on an unfalsifiable (therefore unscientific) premise, 'Scientific' Creationism is not a science. (no matter how much research is done on the subject) It amazes me how the above statement (or variations thereof) will inspire torrents of references to articles and violent attacks on the theory of evolution, but the implications of the statement are never addressed. Creationists ignore it like crazy! The major implication is that since creationism isn't a science, teaching it as a science is lying (bad enough) to children (even worse), and thereby causing their understanding of science and deductive reasoning to be distorted (inexcusable!). --Mark ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 132 Tue Jul 25, 1989 J.REPICI at 22:46 EDT I'm not a "creationist" Mark. But just so people don't get to carried away with the "virtues of science" i should point out that, from a sci- entific viewpoint, before the write bro's, heavier than air flight (by man) was considered unscientific; Plate techtonics (the "science" of continental plate movement) was consideered a farse by the "scientific community as early as 50 years ago. And lastly, to this day, "scientificaly" it is IMPOSSIBLE for bumble-bees to fly. Faith is what you have to have. What you choose to have it in is up to you, but you HAVE to have it. :) -John ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 133 Wed Jul 26, 1989 MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P] at 00:04 EDT John, My faith or lack thereof isn't in question here. I'm speaking of the definition of science. "Man can't fly", "Continents can't move" and "Bees can't fly" are valid scientific statements simply because it is possible to disprove them. The fact that they are wrong is irrelevant. Creationism is not a science simply because on the introduction of any evidence to the contrary, one can postulate the existence of an all-powerful being who is 'stacking the deck' against us. Personally, I think that if there is a God (I think there is), He would be quite a bit more subtle and intelligent than the creationists give him credit for. My argument with the creationists, as I have stated before, is the fact that they are trying to teach creationism as a science. It _isn't_ a science, and teaching it as such, can only do harm to our children. The educational system in this country is in bad enough shape without these people distorting the truth. --Mark ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 134 Thu Jul 27, 1989 J.REPICI at 23:06 EDT Mark, I understand, but think that you are getting lost in semantics on the subject. My problem is how you define science, and the fact that you are seeing it from only one side. You say "man can't fly" is ok because it can be disproved. Rephrase it to the theory that the Write bros. were putting forward to the scientific community "Man can fly" and you have a statement which can not be disproved (not now, and not before flight was achieved). Science, once a search for absolute truth, seems to be, for the sake of 'humanism' (seems to have been) reduced to a mad rush to to find only the lies. That to me takes out half the picture, and limits what science is to a level that Capurnicus probably would not have liked. Of course, you can turn things around any way you like them.: "God created the universe" -not scientific "The universe evolved" -not scientific "God did not create the universe" -is this scientific? "The universe did not evolve" -is this? "God created life" -not scientific "Life evolved" -how can this be "disproved"? What i'm saying (i wasn't questioning your faith) is that science is a faith. You have to have faith. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 135 Fri Jul 28, 1989 R.DANIELSON at 21:31 EDT Both the evolutionist (if honest) and the creationist (ditto) will admit that there are things about the origins of life and the universe that they don't know. But the creationist says that there are things about the universe that CAN'T be known - this is what makes creationism less than a science. A truly "scientific" creationist would work his or her way backward to that moment in 4004 BC (or whenever) and then say "All right, here we have this being who created the universe. What were the processes involved here? Let's try to reconstruct the mechanism by which somethingness arose by from nothingness." The creationists of today don't do that - their position is that they can't even try to think about that, and what is more, you can't either. Bob ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 136 Fri Jul 28, 1989 HJOHN [Sky Eye] at 23:59 EDT Are there any evolutionists that you know of who are so "scientific" as to prove that yes, million, nay billions of years ago, a cataclysmic occurence took place which resulted in the creation of a life form. Why is it considered more "scientific" to believe that than to say that God spoke and life was created. It takes the same amount of faith to believe one view as the other. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 137 Sat Jul 29, 1989 R.DANIELSON at 12:48 EDT What science says (in my opinion) is that given enough time, enough brainpower (and a big enough research grant) there are no questions about the universe - past, present, or future, - that are not answerable. We don't KNOW exactly how the universe was created, or exactly when, but said universe is big enough and comprehensive enough that the evidence is there, albeit in a scattered and disorganised form. What creationism says is that we can trace back the history of life to a very specific point (determined more or less by the lifespans chronicled in the Old Testament) and beyond that point NO inquiry is possible. The essential difference is that for creationism to stand as a theory, it requires us to accept that there are mechanisms (that actually is entirely the wrong word, isn't it??) by which things happen in the universe which we can NEVER understand nor analyse. THAT is what makes it less than a science. Bob ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 138 Sat Jul 29, 1989 HJOHN [Sky Eye] at 14:50 EDT Why is it that so-called evolutionists think they have some kind of monopoly on "science" and that anyone who does not believe in their "theories" of origins is unscientific? ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 139 Sat Jul 29, 1989 R.DANIELSON at 16:28 EDT Aw come on, Harrison, I did not say that creationism was unscientific because it didn't conform to the establishment view. If we took that kind of position, there would have been no scientific advancement in the last 1000 years. And I certainly agree with a lot of the criticism of the current scientific establishment - some of which has come from creationists. But you are evading the point. To say that "God brought it all into being" is a philosophical statement. To say that "God brought it all into being, using the following methods, as shown by the accompanying physical evidence" is science. No creationist that I know of has taken the latter point of view. Let's try a different approach. Many things that were thought to be supernatural in nature in the past have now been shown to be explainable phenomena (yes, I know, a tired old agnostic argument, but it serves its purpose). What I would propose is that any theory which has to resort to unknowable supernatural forces as a root cause, is unscientific. This leaves it wide open for those who want to postulate that God created matter out of nothingness in an instant, that men and dinosaurs coexisted 8,000 years ago, or whatever. All they have to do to make it scientific is to set up a theoretical model showing exactly HOW these processes of creation operate. I'd be delighted to give THAT kind of creationism a fair shake. Bob ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 140 Sun Jul 30, 1989 HJOHN [Sky Eye] at 10:52 EDT Danielson: Glad to see your openness! Unfortunately, not many so-called scientists are willing to be that generous. For example, why was Robert Gentry given the run-around by some elements of the scientific community when it became known that he was a creationist? Yet, these same people supported him in his early research. Gentry was postulating the very approach that you suggest. He was trying to show in a scientific way that radiohalos found in Precambrian granites were not the end product of slowly cooling magma over a period of thousands or millions of years. Rather, Gentry postulates that the radioactivity necessary for creating these special halos had such a short life span or half- life that they would have disappeared long before the magma had time to cool and form granite rocks. If you are seriously interested in this issue, I suggest you get Gentry's book and read it for yourself. The book: "Creation's Tiny Mystery," by Robert V. Gentry, Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, TN 1988. I don't know where you would get this but in the book it says it is published by Earth Science Associates, Box 12067, Knoxville, TN 37912-0067. You could write to them for information about where to buy the book. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 141 Sun Jul 30, 1989 MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P] at 11:17 EDT John.. I guess I did pick some bad examples, but the fact still stands that creationism doesn't qualify as a science. Like the statements at the end of your post that contain the word 'God', creationism can't be scientific because of the dependance on dogma. I'm not sure what you mean by "... rush to find only the lies". In its quest for truth, science is bound to uncover false theories, but I wouldn't call them lies, a lie is an intentional distortion of the truth, a false theory is just a mistake. I have faith (trust) in science, however, I can't regard it as a faith. (Faith being defined as "Belief without need of certain proof") How or why one would go about disproving an obvious fact (ie. man can fly) is beyond me. BTW... The Universe _is_ evolving. How else could one explain the metal poorness of the oldest stars, the measureable expansion of the universe, and the extremely isotropic microwave background radiation? Bob.. Not wanting to give the creationists any extra ammunition, but there are things that science says can't be known. We can't know both the exact position and momentum of a sub-atomic particle. We can know the exact position _or_ the exact momentum, but not both at the same time. There is no such thing as a particle with both an exact position and momentum. Also we can't know what happened before the Big Bang because our physical laws won't apply. --Mark ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 142 Sun Jul 30, 1989 MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P] at 11:19 EDT SKY EYE, The microwave background radiation of the universe is thought to be the 'echo' of the Big Bang. The extreme nearness of spectrum of this radiation to a blackbody spectrum could only have been produced when matter and radiation were in equilibrium, ie. very hot and very dense. According the standard theory (verified by observations) the early universe contained about 75% Hydrogen, 25% Helium and traces of other light elements. These elements had to be recycled via stellar nucleosynthesis into the elements that we are made of. --Mark ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 143 Mon Jul 31, 1989 MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P] at 23:05 EDT What's the creationist policy on the Big Bang theory? ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 144 Tue Aug 01, 1989 E.HAAS at 03:54 EDT Just a side note: Nobody ever proved that it was impossible for the bumble bee to fly. A scientist once calculated that it would be impossible for a bumble bee with RIGID WINGS to fly. The obvious conculsion (that everybody seems to have missed) is, bumble bees have flexible wings (which they do). ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 145 Thu Aug 03, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 23:56 EDT You may be interested in some quotes by an evolutionist about Robert Gentry's "Creation's Tiny Mystery." In a Foreword to the book, Dr. W. Scott Morrow, Associate Professor of Chemistry at Wofford College says this: "Quite apart from the matter of constitutional justice, which has been decisively treated in the works of Cord and Bird, the question of 'origins' remains a challenge not only to the human intellect, but also to the human spirit. "Creation's Tiny Mystery" is a fine documentation of the research of a tenacious, courageous scientist. Robert V. Gentry writes lucidly of his meticulous experimentation with radio halos in ancient minerals. Many scientists with international reputations, such as Truman P. Kohman, Edward Anders, Emilio Segre, G. N. Flerov, Paul Ramdohr, Eugene Wigner, E. H. Taylor, etc., have commented favorably in regard to Gentry's integrity and the professional quality of his data. A non-Darwinian evolutionist like me is struck by how often creationists and evolutionists look at the same information, e.g., the fossil record, and extract from it mutually exclusive interpretations..." More later. I hope Arniebell reads this! ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 146 Thu Aug 03, 1989 ARNIEBELL at 23:19 PDT I did, Harry. What's your point? ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 147 Sat Aug 05, 1989 J.REPICI at 12:32 EDT "A non-Darwinian evolutionist" boy do i like that phrase! Mark, Your message was quite a few messages back so i'm kinda wing'n it here You wondered how or why someone would try to disprove heavier than air flight, when it *is* possible. At the time the Write bro.s proposed it though it was not. I can understand now, after seeing your definition of "lies", why you were upset when i said science was, by your definition "a search only for lies". You define lies as purposely wrong information. I was defingi lies as "untruths" of any kind. I agree that life is evolving, and that the universe is evolving (though not that the 'red shift' proves the distance of bodies, or origin of universe as whole). I believe, however that it is a "leap of faith" to go from "evolving" to "evolved". The same can be said for life. No mechanism has been shown for combining non-biological componds in a way that will produce enzimes, but this is what the whole Darwinian theory rests on. To be an evolutionist requires that you have "faith" of the exact kind you described in your message that such a mechanism exists and did exist at some time in the random environment on earth to produce life. This cannot be disproved. The theary says "a mechanism to do this IS out there" and no amout of scientific research can disprove that. Yet you have "faith"... a belief in something without certain proofs... that there is a way to produce life randomly. Though you might get the idea that i'm a creationist here Mark, i'm not. At least not in the sense that many fundamentalist are. The Bible, like say calculus, is a symbolic representation of spiritual/phisical universe. I would like to see the scientific community do more work in the spiritual realm. I beleve that the reasons for not researching this realm are "unscientific" ("The church kicked Capurnicus out for telling the truth, so we won't have anything to do with the spiritual realm, na"). Most of what science knows about the physical realm was explained to it by a man who's main concerning was exploring the spiritual realm, he even gave us calculus. Also, we are to the point where we know enough to destroy ourselves completely, yet we haven't got the wisdom to know how not to destroy ourselves. Being a pure- ist you may not agree, but science *is* driven by social isues. Science is coming up against a number of "walls" in the physical realm. The search for a unified theory is now completely in "untestable" ground. no-one can ever build an accelorator large enough to test any of the dozen or so theories on the nature of matter, and the unifying forces. Without being able to devise tests with repeatable results (MY definition of "scientific"), science is lost. It should begin a slow cautious move into the spiritual realm. Making only those observations with which "repeatable" results can be obtained, in order to open up new areas. -Take care now -John ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 148 Sat Aug 05, 1989 DRMIKE at 12:45 EDT Have we said it once or a thousand times: there is NOTHING in science that says God did not create the universe! We don't know what happened before the Big Bang (which the Vatican accepts, and they are fairly major league in religion, as I understand it). Why do fundamentalist fanatics INSIST that God COULD NOT HAVE CREATED THE UNIVERSE USING THE BIG BANG 15 BILLIONS YEARS AGO, and why do they insist that God COULD NOT HAVE CREATED MAN BY THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. Do they deny God that capability? There is not and never has been anything mutually contradictory about God's creating the universe and humankind, and the scientific theories that explain the same. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 149 Sun Aug 06, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 14:27 EDT Dr. Mike, Although I agree that God did create the universe using the "big bang" 15 Billion+ years ago, or by whatever that may happened before that. I am at odds with thinking that God created man through evolution. What the creation story tells in Genesis is the making of the earth habitable for humans, starting at verse 3 of chapter 1, notice that the earth was already created well before this. But when Adam named the other animals of the field (genesis 2:19) he never said "at last bone of my bones...", there WAS a time that he was alone in the garden. This would be an impossible thing for a man like Moses to imagine or for Jesus to believe unless it was true and given to him by God. Never does Moses suggest that this is "made up" so although animals were formed many thousands of years ago--man was only here for 6000 years. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 150 Mon Aug 07, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 22:26 EDT The reason we cannot accept evolution because the Bible clearly contradicts that theory. The universe was created in an instant by an all-powerful being, GOD. A careful study of the scientific evidence shows that this view of creation is certainly quite plausible. Historical evidence indicates that man is a relatively new comer to the universe. While some elements in nature such as certain rocks may show great age, that in itself does not negate creation. It could merely mean that at some point in eternity, God created the "Genesis rocks" and placed man and vegetation etc. at a later time. Furthermore, some scientists postulate that the ravages of the Noachian flood were of such immense proportions that they could have caused certain rocks and elements to give the appearance of having been around for very long periods of time. I agree with Dr. Gentry when he says in his book, "Creation's Tiny Mystery" that "...the polonium halos in Precambrian granites identify these rocks as some of the Genesis rocks of our planet--created in such a way that they cannot be duplicated without the intervention of the Creator." Sorry if I have confused some of you but we'll continue this discussio in other messages.