Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!miller From: miller@uiucdcs.UUCP (miller ) Newsgroups: net.misc Subject: creation/evolution - (nf) Message-ID: <5567@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Sun, 12-Feb-84 03:28:49 EST Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.5567 Posted: Sun Feb 12 03:28:49 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 15-Feb-84 04:03:43 EST Lines: 72 #N:uiucdcs:10600139:000:4664 uiucdcs!miller Feb 12 00:11:00 1984 A few replies on the creation/evolution issue: In a reply to Paul Dubuc, Byron Howes' claim that abiogenesis and evolu- tion "are not necessarily linked" won't hold water. To appeal to such things as life coming from space, like Sir Fred Hoyle does in "Evolution from Space", doesn't solve the problem; it sweeps it under the rug. The followup question then is: where did *that* life come from? Ultimately, you must appeal to spontaneous generation. In his next article, he claims that any sort of divine intervention (by which I assume he includes creation) "trashes science as it has been conducted in the past and as it is conducted today". I think he should speak for him- self, not for the great scientists of the past such as Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton, Johann Kepler, Robert Boyle, Charles Babbage, Blaise Pascal, James Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, Gregor Mendel, Michael Faraday, Carolus Linnaeus, etc. etc. etc. I have no doubt how all of those great men of faith and of sci- ence would answer net.misc's question of "can creationists contribute to science?" Indeed, Sir Francis Bacon, who developed and established the scien- tific method, firmly believed in special creation. Did these men, who claimed to be "thinking God's thoughts after Him" do what was claimed, i.e., "trash science"? Ken Perlow writes of creationists "let them publish their stuff in scien- tific journals, where it can be studied by the scientific community, or else prove that they've been refused the forum". OK, I'll take you up on that challenge. Many creationists have published in scientific journals, including the much quoted Dr. Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research. But in all cases, the *implications* of the data must be carefully masked or else it is rejected. The most recent case I'm aware of is Dr. Robert Gentry. While at Oak Ridge National Labs, he published quite a bit on Polonium halos in the standard journals. He successfully answered all challenges to his data, and offered tests by which his conclusions could be falsified. Eventually, how- ever, his NSF funding was denied when other creationists began publishing the *implications* of his work, i.e., that the earth's crust had to be formed in <3 seconds. Another example: the Creation Research Society tried to take out a paid advertisement in "Scientific American". Just a simple: here we are, here's what we do, write here for more info sort of thing. It was -rejected-. Now I ask you: if a paid advertisement was turned down, what chance do you think they have of getting an article published with open creationist conclu- sions? Steve Tynor writes "Any naturalistic explanation, no matter how complex, is *far* simpler than the creation explanation". Such a priori exclusion of a certain conclusion is totally nonobjective. It's no wonder that he also writes "we have *no* scientific evidence for [a supernatural being]". Of course not. He has defined it out of existence. There is no amount of scientific evidence, no data, *nothing* that could be presented to someone who, like Sir Authur Keith, wrote "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable." Finally, I noticed that Lew Mammel's article chose to attack me rather than the Paluxy data I presented. Typical. He correctly points out that I am president of the UI chapter of Students for Origins Research, spending a great deal of time on how relevant he thinks that is. His cavalier attitude is a good example of what Larry Bickford spoke of earlier. It is one of: "Oh. He's a creationist. I can ignore anything he says. CLICK. Off goes the mind." As Lew himself said "And he presumes to lecture us on the requirements of objec- tive judgement!" Exactly. Lew also seemed quite interested in quoting the "Origins Research" account of my trip to the Paluxy River, and of pointing out that I referred to crea- tionists in the third person plural. Had he read my articles a bit closer, he would have known that I: 1) acknowledged my visit to the McFall farm (in two different articles); 2) openly sided with the creationists' conclusions (and said why); and 3) referred to evolutionists in the third person plural also. CLICK. Last, he claims that because Dr. Baugh intends to build a creationist mu- seum, that that "casts a long, dark shadow over the scientific legitimacy of Dr. Baugh's paleontology". Why??? Do evolutionary paleontologists who state their interpretations and who put their material in museums get ostracized by Lew also? CLICK. A. Ray Miller Univ Illinois