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.