Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uicsl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!rmooney From: rmooney@uicsl.UUCP Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: creationism topics Message-ID: <27700004@uicsl.UUCP> Date: Sat, 29-Sep-84 17:44:00 EDT Article-I.D.: uicsl.27700004 Posted: Sat Sep 29 17:44:00 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 5-Oct-84 04:31:34 EDT References: <32500003@uiucdcsb.UUCP> Lines: 94 Nf-ID: #R:uiucdcsb:32500003:uicsl:27700004:000:5215 Nf-From: uicsl!rmooney Sep 29 16:44:00 1984 A. Ray Miller writes: > Ray Mooney still has this silly notion that "creationists...are almost >always in areas not directly related to the evolution-creationism debate". I >suggested he check out the credentials of the staff members at ICR. He >obviously did not do that, calling Dr. Gish an engineer. Sorry Ray, Dr. Gish >earned a BS in chemistry from UCLA, and a Ph.D. in biochemistry from UC Berk- >eley. >....... The most visible engineer in the field is no doubt Dr. Henry Morris. Yes, I actually meant Morris but made a mistake by confusing him with Gish. Of course, as we have seen, Mr. Miller is not alien to making mistakes himself, as he recently wrongly attributed a remark on the net. Mr. Miller then continues to list credentials for all sorts of creationists. Since the VAX I am working on probably does not have the memory to hold all the credentials of evolutionsts, I will avoid typing them in, and simply state that, for the most part, such things are irrelevant, and I should have anticipated Mr. Miller's response and never brought up the subject. >Now, although it's not necessarily true that a high >percentage of creationists are engineers, it is true that a high percentage of >engineers are creationists. No doubt engineers have a better grasp of the >concept "a watch requires a watchmaker". First of all, what is "a high percentage of engineers." Certainly none of the many engineers that I have ever known have been "scientific creationists." But again, such unsupported claims are irrelevant. But, speaking of the infamous "watchmaker," arguement I have a question. The arguement seems to be, using Predicate Calculus for clarity: (for-all (x) (COMPLICATED-ENTITY(x) --> (there-exists (y) (CREATED(y,x)) That is, if x is a complicated entity, then some creator must have created it. It seems that one can also assume that the creator of a complicated entity is also a complicated entity, or in formal notation: (for-all(x,y)(COMPLICATED-ENTITY(x) & CREATED(y,x) --> COMPLICATED-ENTITY(y))) Therefore, a watch, a complicated entity, requires a maker (x=watch1,y=human1) and a human also requires a maker(x=human1,y=god1). Of course the deduction as formulated does not stop there, since by assumption 2, god1 is a complicated entity and therefore requires a creator also (x=god1,y=metagod1). Then the question is, who created God? , and who created the Meta-God, ... ad-infinitum. Is there an inifinte hierarchy of Gods as supposed in R. Heinlein's new book "JOB: A Comedy of Justice," or what is wrong with the assumptions as stated above? Creationists seem to think that since scientists need to postulate at least the initial existence of matter, then they are just as free to postulate the initial existence of God. However, there is a major difference. Matter, presumably, is a simpler substance than God. Isn't ontological parsimony a desirable goal? Scientific theories have always been subject to Occams Razor. However, with the watchmaker arguement above, we are complicating the entity that needs explaining at each step. Of course with the case of the watch being created by man, we know from direct observation that the more complicated entity exists and is the agent that builds watches. In the case of introducing a creator for man, on the other hand, there is no direct observation of such a creation, as most creationists will tell you. If by some means one could be convinced that life on Earth was not a product of evolution (and I am by *no* means granting this assumption), then the next logical step following ontological parsimony in the spirit of scientific enquiry would be to try to find a *natural* explanation for the importation of life, as Prof. Hoyle does. By the way, I am quite sure that Hoyle does not claim life originated on another planet, but that crucial compounds developed on comets where the environment is somehow more suitable. Could it be that A. Ray has not actually read his book even though he continually accuses others of not reading creationists literature? (For the record I have not read the book myself and could be mistaken also) Even if, as Mr. Miller believes, one could show that no environment could support the unguided formation of crucial organic compounds found in life on Earth, then one could possibly postulate that such compounds were originally engineered by life on a neutron star. This would even work if the universe could be shown to be even a few thousand years old since, as Dr. Robert Forward explains in his book "Dragons Egg," such life would operate orders of magnitude faster than molecular based life. I claim that anyone who believes that such ideas are more absurd than bringing God into science is simply biased by social norms, since they all remain in the natural world of matter and avoid the totally unwarranted ontological promiscuity of introducing a "spiritual" realm. So, does A. Ray Miller believe in creationism for scientific or religious reasons? If it is for scientific reasons, why does he reject the more parsimonious solutions above? Ray Mooney ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!rmooney University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign