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