Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cybvax0.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: creationism topics Message-ID: <158@cybvax0.UUCP> Date: Mon, 1-Oct-84 12:44:11 EDT Article-I.D.: cybvax0.158 Posted: Mon Oct 1 12:44:11 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 4-Oct-84 04:48:15 EDT References: <32500003@uiucdcsb.UUCP> Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA Lines: 57 > [Ray Miller] ... Any > model works if you make enough assumptions. Prigogine errs when he assumes > several highly improbable things, for example: > 1 A steady net production of enormous quantities of nucleotides + amino acids > on the hypothetical primative earth by the simple interaction of raw energy > and simple gases. > ... > 8 The above molecules somehow manage to spontaneously separate themselves from > the rest of the world and concentrate into condensed systems coordinated in > time and space. > (ref: Dr. Gish) Note that all of the improbable assumptions must hold; if even > *one* is wrong the system fails. In view of things like this, I would be wary > of taking Dr. Prigogine's own warnings too lightly. Ray has been generous enough to provide us with a few examples of fallacies of argument, so it would be rude of me to not properly document them. First, he assumes what he intends to prove (with the "Prigogine errs", and "improbable assumptions"), and then never provides evidence of error or improbability. Second, he raises Dr. Gish's assumptions, a prime example of putting words into someone else's mouth. Prigogine's theories may not require all those assumptions, nor may they be required in any particular order, nor may they be as improbable as they sound or is implied. For example, assumption 8 could be used to describe things as simple and commonplace as precipitation, and may have occurred before polymerization. In constructing straw horse assumptions, we would expect Gish to be as uncharitable as possible, and these are good examples. Third, Third, in the same paragraph he claims both that 1) engineers can be impartial, disinterested, and unindoctrinated, and thus better able to judge the merits of both arguments, and 2) who can be better suited to study flood geology than Morris, with his PhD in hydraulics and minor in geology? Make up your mind: you can't have it both ways. So much for fallacies of form of some of Ray's arguments. Now on to the (dubious) substance of the arguments. Mostly, appeal to authority has no place in scientific debate, on either side. Nor does appeal to popular opinion, let alone appeal to the opinions of some sub-group. The argument that engineers [because they have a better grasp of the watchmaker concept] would be better able to judge correctly between creationism and evolution is ludicrous. You might just as well argue that the engineers have a more difficult time imagining anything BUT the watchmaker idea, because of the nature of their training. Appeal to authority is at best a heuristic that fails often, because of vested interests, conflicting beliefs, and human nature in general. I for one would prefer to see more debate on the substance of creationism, rather than their organizations and people. Social implications of creationism or evolution (such as accusations of racism) are side issues that distract from the argument about which is correct. It's much easier to see creationism for what it is without a cloud of rhetoric to hide it.