Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site iham1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!iham1!gjphw
From: gjphw@iham1.UUCP (wyant)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Comments on: The Scientific Case for Creation (Part D)
Message-ID: <411@iham1.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Jul-85 17:46:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: iham1.411
Posted: Thu Jul 11 17:46:06 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 08:22:02 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 66


                                   In summary

    The shotgun technique used by W. Brown (as posted by R. Kukuk) to critique
 science relies on several fallacies.  One is the assertion that contemporary
 science and creationism contain the only explanations for the genesis of life
 and the universe.  A second is that it is sufficient to refute science in
 order to establish creationism.

    Science is more accurately viewed as a dynamic process with many
 participants.  The issues of establishing a fact, the interpretations of
 facts, and what constitutes sufficient support or refutation of any theory or
 collection of theories are thorny enough among legitimate investigators, but
 the introduction of unscrupulous players with a hidden agenda sets these
 difficulties into relief.  Any snapshot of science will reveal its
 contradictions and inconsistencies, but then a snapshot usually renders an
 incomplete picture of a process.

    As has been used for unexplained archeological artifacts where
 extraterrestrial influences have been claimed, some creationists (e.g.,
 W. Brown) have seen fit to select particular explanations for certain
 partially understood phenomena.  In most cases, a half dozen non-creation
 explanations are also possible.  These alternative natural explanations are
 not often given prominent coverage in the research journals because the
 evidence to support them is not available.  This supporting evidence is what
 distinguishes a theory from speculation (one of my favorite activities).
 Popular science magazines are much better sources of speculation than academic
 journals.

    Creationism also seems to depend on the treatment of science as intuitively
 obvious based on ordinary experience.  Science has progressed because its
 contributors struggled past everyday experiences to develop a new intuition.
 Unfortunately, this need to step beyond typical experience often renders
 science beyond the ready grasp of the common man (or engineer).

    It seems that resting support for a proposal on the ignorance of a
 designated competitor is fraught with danger.  Creationism seems to be saying
 that science knows all that it ever will, and that the inconsistencies and
 uncertainties that exist are proof of its failure.  At times, it appears as if
 creationists are faulting science for failing to support cultural biases and
 popular misconceptions.  Creationism solves these difficulties by proposing
 temporary suspensions of natural processes that are beyond further scientific
 investigation.

    The language and concepts of the Bible figure prominently in the writing of
 the creationists.  The inerrancy of the Bible is an important tenant of the
 leading creationist organizations.  Yet what is the resolution when
 contemporary science and fundamental Christianity come in conflict?  I have
 read that there is considered to be ample biblical support for an Earth-
 centered universe, but this is in conflict with space-borne observations.  The
 philosophers of science that I have read consider that science makes its best
 progress when all authorities are rejected.  The current age of science began
 in the mid-1800's, as did Christian fundamentalism.

    This is enough of my ramblings.  W. Brown's shotgun technique makes an
 effective and comprehensive defense of science difficult.  I have tried to
 deal with the few topics with which I have some personal experience.  I trust
 that the patient reader will not confuse the incompleteness of science with a
 failure of science, and can recognize an insidious attack.

                              (The end....for now)


                            Patrick Wyant
                            AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL)
                            *!iham1!gjphw