Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mcnc.mcnc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!mcnc!bch
From: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Him
Message-ID: <420@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Mar-85 11:10:53 EST
Article-I.D.: mcnc.420
Posted: Wed Mar 20 11:10:53 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Mar-85 04:25:37 EST
References: <244@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA> <280@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes)
Organization: North Carolina Educational Computing Service
Lines: 55
Summary:
In article <280@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) writes:
> TRUE, science can not prove the existence of a creator. However,
> science can observe EVIDENCE of a creation. This is what creation
> SCIENCE is doing. Both the creation model and the evolution model
> are unproven theorys. The question is, what does the scientific
> evidence point to? Creation or evolution?
>
> Creationists DO NOT have to prove the existance of a creator, they
> are merely collecting and dispursing the scientific evidence of a
> creation.
No! As has been said many times in this group this is simply not the
case. Creationists collect and disperse information which supposedly
refutes evolutionary theory. This is not the same as scientific evidence
of a creation. To wit:
> For example, concerning the fossil record, the creation model would
> predict a sudden and abrupt appearance of highly complex forms of
> life without evidence of ancestral or transitional forms according to
> the evolutionary model.
>
> Since this is what the fossil record has produced, this would be
> scientific evidence of creation.
Note the failure to discuss spermata theory (the technical name for
"little green men"-type theories) and the assertion (incorrect) that
there are no ancestral or transitional forms in the fossil record.
(Read other articles in this newsgroup to see how creationists insist
that in order to be defined as a transitional form a fossil must
have precisely the features they expect it to have...)
> Now, Mr. Keebler, I challenge you to offer me any clear, sound, and
> cut and dried proof of Evolution! Tell me the mechanism for
> Evolution? Give me some examples of upward mutations which have
> resulted in transmutation. Produce some fossil evidence of
> transitional forms or even ancestors of current species. Just as you
> evolutionsts like to say, I have never seen any REAL, SOUND,
> scientific evidence of Evolution, just pseudo-scientific debunking of
> religious items that have no bearing at all on the real issues!
Now, unless G-d is a trickster (which I doubt) the overwhelming pre-
ponderance of the evidence indicates the existance of evolutionary
processes. Creationists dust of their comparatively small compendium
of erroneous and (apparantly) anomalous data in terms of evolutionary
predictions wave it about and assert that it somehow "proves" a creation.
As no scientific theory is ultimately proveable (or ultimately refutable)
reasonability leads me to go with the weight of the evidence rather
than hanging around waiting for some "cut and dried" proof on any side.
--
Byron C. Howes
...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch