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