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