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!linus!decvax!mcnc!unc!howes
From: howes@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes )
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Let's have scientific evolutionism too
Message-ID: <7518@unc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-Aug-84 02:31:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: unc.7518
Posted: Mon Aug 13 02:31:29 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 14-Aug-84 19:18:33 EDT
References: <3388@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: University of North Carolina Comp. Center
Lines: 37

Paul Dubuc begs Dick Dunn's question in a very novel manner.   Dunn asks
for some concise but complete statement of scientific creationism which
stands on its own and does not depend upon an attack on evolutionary
theory.  Dubuc responds by asking that the proponents of evolutionary
theory be held to the same standard.

So far so good.  Dubuc, however, goes on to complain about the tacit
presuppositions seemingly imbedded in evolutionary theory and asserts
that there is nothing less "religious" about evolutionary theory than
about scientific (or religious) creationism.  A fair point, perhaps,
but it is not a meaningful response to Dick Dunn's question.

I submit that evolutionary theory is not as dependent upon its exposi-
tion upon creationism, either scientific or religious, as creationism
is upon evolutionary theory.  From my readings into the creationist
literature I find that the whole of it depends upon pitons placed into
supposed cracks in the evolutionary scheme.  Such research as has been
done is inevitably used as ammunition against evolution rather than to
supplement the body of creationist theory.  One gets the feeling that
creationists believe that disproving evolutionary theory in its current
state will somehow validate creationism.  This seems to me to be a
little strange.

That evolutionary theory stands on its own does not mean it is an 
unassailable block.  Were that so, scientific progress would not be
possible.  It does mean that its exposition does not depend upon 
undercutting other notions, be they creationism, Lysenkoism or stranger
pictures of the development of life.

That kind of exposition of scientific creationism was, I believe, what
Dick Dunn was looking for.
-- 


					   Byron Howes
					UNC - Chapel Hill
				  ({decvax,akgua}!mcnc!unc!howes)