Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!unc!bch
From: bch@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes )
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: creation/evolution - (nf)
Message-ID: <6760@unc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 15-Feb-84 12:10:17 EST
Article-I.D.: unc.6760
Posted: Wed Feb 15 12:10:17 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Feb-84 02:13:50 EST
References: <5567@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Organization: University of North Carolina Comp. Center
Lines: 93

Ray Miller writes:

>>     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.

I have to confess that this statement irritates me more than a tad.  Has Ray
misread my article that badly, or is he only selecting out those bits he 
feels he can refute?  The *reason* that abiogenesis is not critical to evo-
lutionary theory is that evolutionary theory (contrary to some creationist's
beliefs) does not address the question of the origin of life!  The question
it *does* address is that of the development of species given an intitial
state of a relative uniformity of life forms (the blue-green algae state,
if you will.)  Although the initial state hypothesis of evolutionary theory
does contradict the hypothesis of a Genesis-like creation, evolutionary
theory does not address the question of creation itself.  As I pointed out
(and Ray conveniently overlooked) in my original article evolutionary 
theory is compatible with not only the spermata theory of the origins of
life on earth, but also with a subset of the "compact intervention" models
of life origins -- albeit not those which hypothesize simultaneous creation
of a multiplicity of life forms.  Am I being clear enough?

Ray is correct in pointing out that a spermata theory leaves the question of
the origin of life relatively open.  There are at least two possibilities here:
(1) Abiogenesis in an environment different from that of primitive earth
(making Miller's experiments informative but incomplete and opening the 
question to considerable debate.)  
(2) A period of "special creation" taking place somewhere other than earth.
(Again, an hypothesis I suspect is completely unacceptable to most creation-
ists.)

>>     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"?

The catch is, Ray that none of the individuals listed above incorporated their
belief in creation into their scientific hypothesis.  I do not claim that
scientists who believe in creation trash science, but rather than scientific
theories which incorporate divine intervention make the conduct of science
impossible under their axioms.  There is a difference.

Why does science become impossible?

Let's posit, for the moment, that we find incontravertible proof that an
active deity indulged in a period of "compact intervention" wherein some,
or all, of the rules and relationships we believe to exist in the universe
were suspended or changed.  Do we not, now, have to admit the possibility
that the results of any scientific experiment or observation may be the
result of divine intervention, even up to and including things we *think*
we know now, such as the rules governing orbital mechanics?  Do we not
have to consider any experiment, past present or future, potentially
irreproducible and, worse, any experimental or observational failure
or anomaly also potentially a result of a capricious deity?  To me,
this makes the conduct of science (and possibly life) an extremely
chance, if not impossible, business.

Creationists, if I read them correctly, say that "compact intervention"
was a one-time occurrence.  I don't know what evidence they have for
this.  If such evidence exists, however, could it not be the result of
a later intervention?  Hey, maybe their never were any dinosaurs, just
footprints and fossiles left as the result of the divine hand!  Do
you see what I mean?  "Knowledge" becomes infinitely more uncertain 
under the axiom of an interfering deity than it is already.  Even the
use of science becomes an imponderable.   It is one thing to pray
for guidance and safety prior to a shuttle launch, it is another to
pray that the laws of orbital mechanics not be changed until the launch
is over.  Goodbye technology, hello witch-doctors!

Again, creationists may claim that I am exaggerating to the absurd. 
Yet the Bible seems to document many, many cases of intervention with
respect to the laws of physics.  Was not the rotation of the earth
supposed to be halted or reversed during the Battle of Jericho, for
example?  If it happened once, what is to say it won't happen again?
How do we know?  How can we ever know?
-- 

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

					Byron Howes
					UNC - Chapel Hill
					(decvax!mcnc!unc!bch)