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, & falsification - (nf)
Message-ID: <5976@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Mar-84 22:43:35 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.5976
Posted: Thu Mar  1 22:43:35 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Mar-84 09:34:50 EST
Lines: 60

#R:uiucdcs:10600143:uiucuxc:3900049:000:3125
uiucuxc!tynor    Mar  1 16:57:00 1984


    Ray, you never seem to learn.  Now you attempt to reverse one of
science's crutial tests of scientific theories: Is It Falsifiable? You
make the outrageous claim that Creationism *is* falsifiable and that
Evolution is not.  To support your view you claim that creationism
would be falsified if scientists could show evolution, either by
experiment or in the fossil record.  You then go on to carefully
explain that there is a difference between *horizontal* and *vertical*
evolution.  You insult your critics for not being familiar with this
*important* concept.

    Well Ray, I am familiar with the creationist's concept of
horizontal and vertical evolution.  I have never seen a consistant
definition of what constitutes horizontal and what falls into the
vertical bin...  In one sentence,  a creationist will claim that foxes
and domestic dogs are closely enough related to be considered as having
evolved from a common ancestor, then tries to show why humans and
chimpanzees (which show roughly the same biochemical and anatomical
similarity as the dog/fox case) could not have descended from a common
ancestor. The horizontal/vertical concept is simply a clever way of
admitting that significant evolution has taken place without giving up
the precious idea that "God created the basic *Kinds*".

    You claim that creationism is falsifiable, but fail to outline any
way that the scientist could falsify it.  Creationist have already
admitted to evolution with the horizontal/vertical trick,  so
demonstrations of transitional fossils will not do the trick...  
Your entire discussion of the Paluxy River tracks is extraneous. Even
you admit that "if such a thing can be done...while not falsifying
creation,..." I fail to see your reason for including this in this
discussion.  Simply eliminating a piece of evidence does not falsify a
theory (unless that one piece of evidence is the only evidence you
have...)

    You claim that evolution is itself non-falsifiable.  You claim that
it has no predictive value.  Somehow you demand that a theory be able
to predict future events in order for it to be termed 'predictive'.
Evolution does predict several things:  The biochemical similarity of
all life, the order of the fossil record, the anatomical similarity of
diverse species, etc.  The concept of evolution does not include the
specific *mode* of evolution.  This is currently under serious
debate...(yes, there are some Lamarkians even today!)   But the 
evidence for evolution (however it occured) is tremendous.

    If your creation model (young earth, Noadic flood, etc.) is to be
taken seriously,  the whole of science must be trashed.  It is not only
evolutionary biology that conficts with your model, but also astronomy,
geology, chemistry, and physics.  Your model nesessitates the total
restructuring of Science. (Not to mention the requirement of a
supernatural creator. More on that later.)  Extrordinary claims demand
extrordinary evidence. (more than a few 'footprints'...)
	
	
	Steve Tynor    
	      
	     ihnp4!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!tynor 
             University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana