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