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