Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site imsvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!elsie!imsvax!rcc
From: rcc@imsvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Perhaps probability
Message-ID: <231@imsvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 21-Aug-84 13:31:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: imsvax.231
Posted: Tue Aug 21 13:31:06 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 23-Aug-84 02:14:24 EDT
References: <209@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: IMS Inc, Rockville MD
Lines: 98

[> = Paul DuBois	{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois]
[>> = assorted other people]

>Creationists brandishing probability arguments against evolution
>have been told that probability cannot meaningfully be applied
>to the question "how did what's here happen to become as it is".
>If this is true, then it would appear a reasonable reply to
>request that evolutionists refrain from such arguments as well.
>I refer specifically to articles excerpted below, all of which
>attempt, in rather, shall we say, imprecise terms, to show that
>formation of complex organic molecules is not really so improbable
>after all.  But if probabilistic considerations are
>inadmissible as evidence, then such arguments are as fatuous
>as those of the creationists are alleged to be.  Right?

>> From: brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson)
>> Once the right reactions get going, there should be lots of
>> proteins getting formed every millisecond...

>"Should be."

>> sdcrdcf!alan
>> A small probability means a finite probability.  Maybe the universe
>> developed the right combination of chemicals a few minutes after the
>> 'big bang.' That seems a lot more probable then having gotten here by
>> having some God say 'poof! life exists!'

>"Maybe.  Seems."

[edited out for space's sake, I think you all get the idea]

>There were better arguments than these, such as the one concerning
>water formation, but I trust you get the point.  Evolutionists
>insist that their arguments are valid while those of creationists
>are not.  The above shows otherwise.
>
>"Maybe there was a creator."
>"What if God did such-and-such?"
>
>You don't like that, I suppose.
>What puts any of the above excerpts in a different class?
>Only that they were offered by members of the "scientific"
>side of the question -- and so therefore are not to be questioned!!
>----
>P.S.  I realize I haven't dealt at all with "what are the
>scientific arguments for creation", which seems to be the burning
>question at the moment.  I shall attempt it at a later date.
>The question is admittedly difficult.

To those of you still with me, pardon the length of the above excerpt.
Now, on with the show...

ARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHH !!

This is worse than simply attacking evolution in order to justify creation.
This is STUPIDITY of the highest order !!  If you want to attack an argument
by bandying semantics, then head on over to net.philosophy where people are
debating over "What is truth?", "When can we say we 'know' something?",
"What can we 'know'?" and "Can we 'know' anything at all?"  The whole point
behind (Dick Dunn's article, I believe) the article requesting information
about scientific creationism was to get information and arguments that
attempt to support creationism on its own merits, not by disproving other
theories and saying "Well, we're all you've got left...".  Nobody claims
the evolution is absolutely correct or even partially correct.  Supporters
of evolution believe that it is the best theory to operate by seeing as
it does the best job of explaining known facts, and predicting other facts,
while not necessitating a large change in the present world-view.  (The
present world-view may not be correct either, but from an operational
point of view, it seems to be working better than anything else so far,
including the Middle-Age Christian world-view that went out with the
Renaissance.)

And the cry goes out again, "Where is the evidence FOR creationism?"

"We want FACTS..."
"We want FACTS..."
"We want FACTS..."

P.S. -- If you're going to deal with "The scientific arguments for
creationism" the same way you dealt with the "Probability and creationism",
don't bother.  You'll just waste everybody's time.

P.P.S. -- The question (scientific arguments for creationism) shouldn't
be difficult.  If it is, that just means you believe in creationism
because that what you want to believe in, not because there's any
objective evidence for it.  In that case, why don't you go believe the
world is flat, too?

-- 
The preceding message was brought to you by --

		Ray Chen

UUCP:	{umcp-cs!eneevax || seismo!rlgvax!elsie}!imsvax!rcc
USnail:	Integrated Microcomputer Systems, Inc.
	Suite 400
	6100 Executive Blvd.
	Rockville, MD  20852