Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!hao!ward From: ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Response to Larry Bickford Message-ID: <1223@hao.UUCP> Date: Sat, 20-Oct-84 14:25:15 EDT Article-I.D.: hao.1223 Posted: Sat Oct 20 14:25:15 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 21-Oct-84 15:38:17 EDT Distribution: net Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO Lines: 74 [] Larry Bickford has done a marvelous job of expounding the philosophy of "scientific creationism". He has pointed out the difference between matters of faith and matters of science. He has also made it very clear that to make matters of science consistant with matters of his faith requires an all-out atack on modern science. He of course refers to it as evolution. He likes to pretend that he's only disagreeing with the theory of evolution. But what he calls evolution, the rest of the world calls science. Here are a few of the disciplines that Larry Bickford calls evolution: Astronomy (the distance of the Galaxies), Geology (the overthrusts), Biology (differing amino acids), Paleantology (the Hominid Fossils), Physics (the Decay of Isotopes). In order to build a model of creation that is consistent with a literal interpretation of Genesis, virtually the entire body of modern science must be discredited. Speaking of models, it is very clever of Larry to try to define scientific theory in such a way as to eliminate the possiblity of a theory of evolution. Since the creationist claim that any theory was as good as any other has been thoroughly thrashed, they are now trying to move the debate to the realm of models. It is a lot easier to make such a claim for models, since models need not explain anything, and the criteria for them is much less rigorous than for theories. Ralph Hartley makes a mistake that is common with scientist in dealing with creationists when he states that this is just a matter of semantics. Scientists tend to believe that creationists are just like themselves: honest people in search of the truth. They therefore expect their opponents to follow pretty much the same rules - finding evidence, making theories, finding more evidence. They are quite unprepared for the fabrication of evidence and the shifting of rules that constantly occurs in this debate. The creationists, on the other hand, seem to feel that, because scientists have come to conclusions that contradict their interpretation of holy books, that the scientists are evil, and any means to defeat them is permitted. And Larry Bickford calls it hypocritical when there is a lag between the very latest developments in science and what is taught in schools. (This is not to be construed as a comment on Larry Bickford's honesty. Since I know nothing about him, I cannot make any such comment.) Well, the shift from theory to model as not just a matter of semantics, but a fundamental shift in the rules, and cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. Larry accused scientists of holding a double standard when it comes to creationists, yet he is guilty of the same thing when it comes to the question of ultimate origins. He falsely states that only creationists recognise an area beyond the realm of science, then goes on to claim that creationists have explained the ultimate origin. Of course, science recognises a realm beyond science. All things in reality that leave no evidence lie beyond the realm of science. And, of course, all that is accomplished by the introduction of a creator is the introduction of another layer of complexity. Once one postulates a creator into scientific discourse, one must then discuss the origin of the creator, the nature of the creator, and the means by which the creator did the creating. Since there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of a creator, the above questions will make scientific discourse sound amazingly like theology. I do not believe, as has been stated, that creationism will cause the destruction of science. I merely point out the obvious: that creationism is an attack on science. I have absolute faith that the people of the nation, and of the world, have enough sense to see the truth; and that the duplicity that is being put forth as scientific creationism will be seen for what it is: an attempt to force us all to accept the beliefs of a minority religious cult. -- "The number of arguments is unimportant unless some of them are correct." Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307