Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cvl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!rlh
From: rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: (long) Re: A *scientific model* for creation
Message-ID: <1435@cvl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Oct-84 00:34:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: cvl.1435
Posted: Fri Oct 19 00:34:19 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Oct-84 07:03:19 EDT
Organization: Computer Vision Lab, U. of Maryland
Lines: 244

Larry Bickford's postings are overwhelming but I think they warant a
reply. Here goes.

It seams to me that there are actually three creationist models.

The first is the "Biblical" model that the world was created in 6 days
in such and such a way etc. Larry says this is a matter of religious
faith and outside the realm of science. Good. As long as it dosen't try
to pretend to be something its not (a scientific theory) I have no
objection to it.

The second model is that before a certian unspecified time the laws of
physics didn't work and the universe was put together by some creator.
The main problem with this model is that it dosn't depend on evidence.
In fact any evidence can be interpreted as something the creator did.

The third model is that the universe was created, in nearly its present
state, fairly recently. This is the theory the creationists keep
finding "evidence" for. It is at least a real theory in the sense that
evidence for or against it can in principle be found.

>	"The creation model thus postulates a period of special creation
>	in the beginning, during which all the basic laws and categories
Model #2
>	of nature, including the major kinds of plants and animals, as
>	well as man, were brought into existence by special creative and
>	integrative processes which are no longer in operation. Once the
>	creation was finished, the processes of *creation* were replaced
>	by process of *conservation*, which were designed by the Creator
>	to sustain and maintain the basic systems He had created.
>	"In addition ..., the creation model proposes a basic principle
>	of disintegration now at work in nature (since any significant
>	change in a *perfect* primeval creation must be in the direction
>	of imperfection).

Why? Is this perfect state unique? Why must the initial state be
*perfect*? How do you even define perfection? If you define it as being
the way the creator designed it then why isn't it still perfect? If (S)He
disigned the maintenence system like you said why didn't (s)he do it right?
Of course this is a matter of theology. Only the first couple of
sentences are "scientific".

>	Also, the evidence in the earth's crust of
>	past physical convulsions seems to warrant inclusion of
>	post-creation global catastrophism in the model."

Evolution also includes the posibilities of catastropies. Note for
example the "asteroid and the dinosauar" theory (not uniformly
accepted).

>		Morris, _Scientific Creationism_, p.12

> Evolutionists thus neatly dodge some very basic issues, such as origin
> of life

Dodge the origin of life? You must be kidding! The theory of evolution
is ABOUT the origin of life.

> and origin of the universe.

The origin of the universe is considerd to be in the realm of astronomy.
The current theory is that the universe started with a "big bang" from
which all matter originated. Well, you may ask, then what caused the
big bang? I dont know. There are speculations, but without evidence
there can be no real theory. Model #2 does about as well as any.

By the way, if you can ask "What caused the big bang?", I should be
allowed to ask "Where did this creator come from?". Of course there is
no answer, you have to make an assumption just like us.

> Inevitably (as Ray Mooney did), the philosophical question of "First
> Cause" arises. And well it should - the evolution model CANNOT provide
> a satisfactory answer to it. Yet it must, for by its statements, all
> things must have an answer within what we see.

No! The universe is not required to leave clues lying around like some
detective story. If there are no clues there can be no answer.  If
there did turn out to be evidence of first causes (I don't see how
there could be but I haven't used my imagination), then of course
first cause would become a field of scientific study.

> The creation model, on
> the other hand, admits to a realm beyond science, where a First Cause is
> fully possible.

This is simply a matter sweeping things under the rug. If there is any
evidence concerning something, then it is by definition in the realm of
science.

> Apart from the study of "what was before," we can study "what it was
> like as far back as we can see." In this, the evolution and creation
> models separate. Evolution views a very simplistic world, later to be
> built up both biologically and geologically. Creation views a completed
> world, later to degenerate.

We're starting to get into model #3.

> The big problem with "overthrust geology" is the complete lack of
> evidence that it ever occurred.

What? That overthrusts never occured? But they are going on right now!
Every few years an overthrust fault kills a few thousand people.

> Actually, Ethan and the others trying to submit ideas for falsifiability
> do so in vain, inasmuch as much more advanced scientists in the
> evolution camp have flat-out admitted that "our theory of evolution has
> become ... one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations."

Just because some people will hold onto a theory no matter what dosn't
mean that it can't be disproven.  In any case I think they meant
"cannot be refuted by any possible [small number of] observations".
There are a lot of observations backing up evolution and unless your
theory explains ALMOST ALL of them you need a LOT of new evidence.
(many volumes of REAL evidence)

> Radiometric dating of rocks is like asking your accountant "how much do
> these figures add up to?" The answer is, of course "How much do you want
> them to add up to?"

Alas, many paleontologysts(spelling) have found that the radiometric
dates of the rocks that were "supposed" to proove their pet theories do
NOT add up to what they wanted. This is what keeps them honest.

> So it is with radiometric - many assumptions, even
> on the half-lives of the elements involved (more so with Rb/Sr),
> assumptions which may not be true, including:
>	invariability of decay rates under extreme conditions;

There has NEVER been an experiment in which the decay rate of ANY
isotope has been observed to vary under ANY condition (short of nuclear
bombardment).

>	that there was no daughter element present at Time=0; etc.

Usualy this is also a good asumption in many cases. When the product is
a volitile element and the rock solidified from a melt in contact with
air it is hard to see how there would be any.

> OSA was pondering the possibility of light (EMR is a
> strange beast as it is) travelling - not in Euclidean space - but in
> *Riemannian* space, putting the Andromeda Galaxy many orders of
> magnitude closer than is believed. I have heard of any followups to
> this.

This sounds like goble-t-gook to me. To make the Andromida Galaxy look
more distant by "many orders of magnitude" space would have to have a
LARGE negative curvature. This curvature would have to be uniform in
order to not distort the image. Such a curvature would have other easily
observable effects. For instance the number of galxies as a function of
distance would increase much faster than it does in fact (this is
because in a negatively curved space the circumferance of a circle is
more than PI times its diameter).

> On the other hand, in _The Case for Scientific Creation_, Morris
> presents 41 separate reasons for disputing the 4.5E9 years hypothesis of
> evolution, among them:

The number of arguments is unimportant unless some of them are correct.
This is purely in the realm of model #3.

>	Decay of earth's magnetic field (10E4 years max)

The earth's magnetic field does not seem to be decaying at all. It looks
more like it is driven by an active power source (probably convection
in the core). In fact there seems to be evidence that the field "flips"
every so often. This is useful in providing (relative) dates for the
sea floor.

>	Influx of radiocarbon into earth system (10E4 years max)

They call it radiocarbon because it is unstable.

>	Efflux of He-4 into atmosphere (1750-175000 years)
>	Decay lines of galaxies (10E6 years max)
>	Expanding interstellar gas (60E6 years max)

Are you prepaired to defend these, or are they just more goble-t-gook?

>
> On the nature of the catastrophe, the basic creation model makes no
> statements.

Only one catastrophe?

> Yet from observation of the data,

What data?

> global flooding combined
> with major geologic upheavals would account for the evidence. Given the
> evidence of the biosphere, about 5000 years ago is a possible time.

What evidence?

> Three qualification have already been cited:
> 1. A fruitful theory *correlates many separate facts*, particularly the
>    important *prior observations*, in a logical preferably easily grasped
>    structure of thought.
> 2. In the course of continued use it *suggests new relations* and
>    stimulate directed research.
> 3. The theory permits us to deduce predictions that *check with
>    experience* by test, and it is useful for clearing up puzzling
>    difficulties and solving practical problems.
>
> The history of science has shown that a good theory frequently has, in
> addition to the three attributes above, one or more of the following
> three:
> 4. When the smoke of initial battle has lifted, the more successful of
>    two rival theories often turns out to be the one that is simpler in
>    the sense that it involves *fewer basic assumptions or hypotheses*.
> 5. A theory is more readily accpetable to contemporary scientists if its
>    *postulates or assumptions are plausible*.
> 6. Successful theory is flexible enough to grow, and to *undergo
>    modifications* where necessary.
> [From Chapter 8, "On the Nature of Scientific Theory," in _Foundation of
> Modern Physical Science_ by Horton and Holler (pub. by Addison-Wesley).]

These are the most important properties of the theory of evolution. Of
course some of these criteria are subjective e.g., #5.

> Very critical is the fact that no "prior observations"
> are possible, since no man observed first origins, life, or humankind;

The phrase "prior observations" means prior to the formulation of the
theory. Not prior to the origin of life.

> nor is it possible to "check with experience by test" in any manner when
> objective considerations are given to first origins.

Again "check with experience by test" means making predictions and
testing them. You don't have to experience the origin of the universe to
do this.

> For these and other reasons, the proper terminology is MODELS of
> origins, whether creation or evolution.

I disagre. In any case it is only a matter of semantics.

Og! That was more than I expected! I realy don't have time for this; my
disertation defense is in three weeks.

				Ralph Hartley
				rlh@cvl
				seismo!rlgvax!cvl!rlh