Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!miller
From: miller@uiucdcs.UUCP (miller )
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: creation, evolution, & falsification - (nf)
Message-ID: <5936@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-Feb-84 03:26:53 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.5936
Posted: Wed Feb 29 03:26:53 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 2-Mar-84 22:16:31 EST
Lines: 68

#N:uiucdcs:10600143:000:4676
uiucdcs!miller    Feb 28 23:41:00 1984


     Is evolution falsifiable?  Is creation falsifiable?  No for the first and
yes for the second.  Hence by the criteria of some on the net, evolution is a
pseudo-science while creation is a science.
     Bill Jefferys wrote "Let *evolutionists* propose conceivable observations
whose implications would be so serious *to evolutionists* that it would cause
them to question the validity of evolutionary theory.  Similarly, let *crea-
tionists* demonstrate that their discipline is indeed a science by suggesting
conceivable observations that would cause *them* to question the validity of
creationism."  A fine idea, with Bill being the only evolutionist brave enough
to do that.  Bill's suggested test was evidence of men and dinosaurs living
contemporaneously.  Given such evidence in 3 separate notes by me, others on
the net responded with things like: well, little green men from Ork might have
trotted around barefoot and then split for 65M years (ala Eric Von Daniken).
Silly of course, but it demonstrates that evolution is so plastic that it can
always be twisted to squirm out of any potential falsification procedures.
     And what predictive value does it have for the future?  Due to the random
mechanism for change, very little, if any.  No predictions can be made as to
the direction, rate, limits, etc. of future evolution.  It all depends upon the
toss of the dice.  The evolutionary biologists Drs. Ehrlich and Birch wrote in
"Nature" that "Our theory of evolution has become...one which cannot be refuted
by any possible observations.  Every conceivable observation can be fitted into
it.  It is thus 'outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false.  No
one can think of ways in which to test it.  Ideas, either without basis or
based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified sys-
tems have attained currency far beyond their validity.  They have become part
of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training."
     But as I promised last week, here is a falsification test for creation (2
test actually).  First for the Paluxy River tracks.  Given a slab of Cretaceous
limestone, fabricate a human-like footprint.  It must be of equal quality as
the best that Dr. Baugh has found, i.e., subtle human features such as toes,
arch, heel, ball of foot, etc. all in correct anatomical proportions.
Additionally lamination lines *must* follow the contour of the depression -
including the toe region.  The lamination lines will of course eliminate all
carvings (hoaxes, erosion, etc.)  I will wave the additional restriction that
the print must be located underneath overlying Cretaceous layers to make it
easier.  If such a thing can be done (and no scientist or evolutionist has yet)
then while not falsifying creation, I will agree that the Paluxy tracks cannot
be used as strong positive evidence for the model.
     (BTW Bill, to answer your question, if I recall correctly Dr. Baugh has 2
doctoral degrees: one in Theology and the other in Paleoanthropology.  He also
has a MS in Archaeology.  So despite your comments, he knows what he's doing.)
     But to put creationism to the test even more: creation, unlike evolution,
says that some things won't happen (and thus opens itself to falsification).
Creationists claim that there are limits in variability to viable organisms.
Thus to falsify the claim, simply demonstrate said transitions in the past
(through fossils) or in the present.  If you don't know the difference between
"horizontal" and "vertical" evolution then you don't know enough about the
creation model to intelligently criticize it.  If you don't know why creation-
ists generally agree with evolutionists on the *order* of fossils in the local
geological columns then you don't know enough about the creation model to
intelligently criticize it.  And finally, if you don't propose a mechanism by
which your model can be falsified (or at least try like Bill) then you have no
grounds on which to call evolution a science.
     Finally, Bill writes "the best way to be convinced of the weakness of the
creationist case is to read some creationist literature, and I encourage evolu-
tionists to do so".  Now, although I disagree on the weakness point, I do agree
on reading the literature.  If nothing else, objective people like to hear both
sides of an issue - from the *proponents* of each side.  I suggest the book
"What is Creation Science?" by Drs. Morris and Parker.  If all you want is an
introduction and you're only going to read one thing, this is definitely the
one to get.  There are others more technical, but this is a good start.

A. Ray Miller
Univ Illinois