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!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!ihnp1!ihnp4!iham1!rck
From: rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 33)
Message-ID: <387@iham1.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 29-Jun-85 17:10:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: iham1.387
Posted: Sat Jun 29 17:10:45 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Jun-85 03:02:07 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 87


     THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE

I.  (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.  (See
    1-36.)

II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND  LIFE
    WERE RECENTLY CREATED.

    A.  NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS  FOR  THE  EVOLUTION  OF  THE  SOLAR
        SYSTEM   AND   UNIVERSE   ARE   UNSCIENTIFIC   AND  HOPELESSLY
        INADEQUATE. (See 37-56.)

    B.  TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR
        ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS.

       62.  Geological formations are almost  always  dated  by  their
            fossil  content,  especially  by  certain INDEX FOSSILS of
            extinct animals. The age of the fossil is derived from the
            assumed   evolutionary   sequence,  but  the  evolutionary
            sequence is based on the fossil record. This reasoning  is
            circular  [a-e].  Furthermore, this procedure has produced
            many contradictory results [f].

            a)  ''It  cannot  be   denied   that   from   a   strictly
                philosophical  standpoint  geologists are here arguing
                in a circle. The  succession  of  organisms  has  been
                determined by a study of their remains embedded in the
                rocks,  and  the  relative  ages  of  the  rocks   are
                determined  by  the  remains  of  organisms  that they
                contain.'' [R. H. Rastall, ''Geology,''  ENCYCLOPAEDIA
                BRITANNICA, 1954, Vol.10, p. 168.]
            b)  ''Are the authorities maintaining, on  the  one  hand,
                that  evolution  is  documented by geology and, on the
                other hand, that geology is documented  by  evolution?
                Isn't   this   a  circular  argument?''  [Larry  Azar,
                ''Biologists,  Help!''  BIOSCIENCE,  Vol.28,  November
                1978, p. 714.]
            c)  ''The intelligent layman has long  suspected  circular
                reasoning  in  the  use  of  rocks to date fossils and
                fossils  to  date  rocks.  The  geologist  has   never
                bothered  to  think  of  a  good  reply,  feeling that
                explanations are not worth the trouble as long as  the
                work  brings  results.  This  is  supposed to be hard-
                headed pragmatism.'' [J.  E.,  O'Rourke,  ''Pragmatism
                Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,'' AMERICAN JOURNAL
                OF SCIENCE, Vol.276, January 1976, p. 47.]
            d)  ''The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils  date
                the  rocks  more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid
                this kind of reasoning, if it insists  on  using  only
                temporal  concepts, because circularity is inherent in
                the derivation of time scales.''  [O'Rourke,  p.  53.]
                Although   O'Rourke   attempts   to   justify  current
                practices  of  stratigraphers,   he   recognizes   the
                inherent   problems   associated  with  this  circular
                reasoning.
            e)  ''But the danger of circularity is still present.  For
                most biologists the strongest reason for accepting the
                evolutionary hypothesis is their  acceptance  of  some
                theory  that  entails it. There is another difficulty.
                The temporal ordering of biological events beyond  the
                local  section  may critically involve paleontological
                correlation, which necessarily  presupposes  the  non-
                repeatability  of  organic events in geologic history.
                There are various justifications for  this  assumption
                but  for  almost  all  contemporary paleontologists it
                rests  upon  the  acceptance   of   the   evolutionary
                hypothesis.''  [David  B.  Kitts,  ''Paleontology  and
                Evolutionary Theory,''  EVOLUTION,  Vol.28,  September
                1974, p. 466.]
            f)  ''It is a problem not easily  solved  by  the  classic
                methods  of stratigraphical paleontology, as obviously
                we will land ourselves immediately  in  an  impossible
                circular argument if we say, firstly that a particular
                lithology  is  synchronous  on  the  evidence  of  its
                fossils, and secondly that the fossils are synchronous
                on the evidence of the lithology.''  [Derek  V.  Ager,
                THE  NATURE OF THE STRATIGRAPHICAL RECORD, 2nd edition
                (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1981), p. 68.]
            g)  See references for items 22 and 64.

                                 TO BE CONTINUED


      III.  (Earth Sciences):
				Ron Kukuk
				Walt Brown