Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!tynor From: tynor@uiucuxc.UUCP Newsgroups: net.misc Subject: Re: creation/evolution - (nf) Message-ID: <5611@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Tue, 14-Feb-84 03:32:18 EST Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.5611 Posted: Tue Feb 14 03:32:18 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 17-Feb-84 04:01:09 EST Lines: 65 #R:uiucdcs:10600139:uiucuxc:3900046:000:3468 uiucuxc!tynor Feb 13 22:54:00 1984 > A. Ray Miller Univ Illinois /* ---------- */ > > 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"? Did any of these great men of science inject supernatural explanations into their scientific work? No. I don't see how the ignorance of great scientists of the past sheads any credence on the creationists position... I could claim that because Kepler believed in astrology we should consider it a valid scientific discipline... Hogwash? Of course, but so is A. Ray's argument. > Ken Perlow writes of creationists "let them publish their stuff in > scien- tific journals, where it can be studied by the scientific 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? I think I can explain this one. The Creation Research Society requires its members to swear an oath proclaiming their belief in the biblical creation of the world. 'Scientific American' has a certain standard to which it must abide by. It features serious articles about scientific subjects. The Creation Research Society is anti-science: it requires its voting members to *reject* evolution. The Creation Research Society is a religious organization (regardless of what they call themselves) and the advertisment was purely religious propaganda. Should SA also be required to publish adds by the Church of Scientology, Maharesi Yogi, etc.? > 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. Nonobjective? Rather a simple application of Occam's Razor. Even the creationists must accept the reality of a causal universe (No flames from the philosophers please...) But they need more. Their explanation requires the existance of the supernatural, something which is not bound by the natural laws of the universe, a god. No matter how anyone might argue to the contrary, the concept of God is far more complex than the most complicated mechanistic explanation. When dealing with science, one attempts to explain natural phenomenon in terms of natural phenomenon. By introducing the supernatural, we introduce an entity which requires a *HUGE* ammont of explanation. (What is it, what natural laws does it follow, etc.) Sorry, the creation explanation is a cop-out. (and certainly not simple!) Steve Tynor ihnp4!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!tynor University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana