Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!petsd!pesnta!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: A new voice. Message-ID: <536@psivax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 5-Jul-85 18:09:15 EDT Article-I.D.: psivax.536 Posted: Fri Jul 5 18:09:15 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 9-Jul-85 05:48:13 EDT References: <349@scgvaxd.UUCP> <81@rtp47.UUCP> <352@scgvaxd.UUCP> Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA Lines: 71 Summary: In article <352@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > There is a huge difference here! Creationism allows for a supernatural > act to start things off. Evolution holds that the same processes that > got us here are still taking place (speciation) at a rate to slow to > observe. Nevertheless, since the processes are still occuring, it should > be possible to discover the mechanism behind it. It is, and we are well on our way to doing just that, tho we may not be quite there yet. > > Your first reaction will be to say, "AHHAA, so that means that creationism > is not science, since it deals with the metaphysical!" But, my answer is > not necessarily so. Science is interested in truth and evidence of such > truth. If science rules out anything that is related to the metaphysical, > Evolution must also be ruled out. Why? Because even Evolution had to have > a beginning. (ala Big Bang) Where did the gasses come from?? If you say > that the Universe is eternal, than your opening the door to all sorts of > metaphysical questions! Finally, since the origin of matter and life can > not be adequately explained by known physical laws, why rule out a meta- > physical origin. This is not being objective! > This is a bogus argument. The theory of *biological* evolution does not *care* about how matter got here in the first place, or even how life originated, it is just a model of what happens *given* that life exists. The theory of abiogenesis deals with the origin of life, and the origin of matter and planets and such is a branch of cosmology! Please keep in mind that a theory is only valid *within* the framework of its area of application! The Creationist position os an attempt to replace at least three seperate, and *independent* theories with one expalnation. When I say independent, I mean that each of the theories could be true or false without implying anything about the truth or falsity of any of the others. Thus you *cannot* try to tie them together in a single basket. > > For as many facts as Evolution can explain, it leaves some very difficult > problems behind. For example, the ability to reason and sexual organs (male > and female) are very hardpressed to be explained by Evolution. > Here you are confusing two different levels of explanation, the *general* overview presented by basic evolutionary theory, and specific hypotheses about how a particular feature came about. The staement is totally false at the general level, that is there is no problem with regard to the general theory, since both features mentioned provide a clear reproductive advantage! In fact the ability to reason is the *ultimate* adaption, since it essentially subsumes all other adaptions, plus a few extras. However, even at the level of phylogenetic hypotheses this statement is misleading since a number of (admittedly incomplete) reasonable hypotheses exist as to the origin of such structures, and they are being improved upon all the time! > Creationism explains to me why I can think about the past, reason through > the present, and wonder about the future. It explains why I am so different > from the animal kingdom and why there are two of every animal species and > two of the human species. It explains why the dog in all its variation is > still a dog after years of artificial breeding. It explains why the > fruitfly still remains a fruitfly after inducing mutations at an incredible > rate. It explains why the fossils have been unable to confirm Darwinist > gradualism but rather support creationist claims. > Actually, evolutionary theory, as it currently exists, *also* explains all these things! That i sexcept the last, which is essentially untrue, the fossil record is quite consistent with gradulaism, it simply does not have the granularity to distinguish rates sufficiently to distinguish between "pure" gradualism" and the Punctuated Equilibrium concept of "stepped" gradualism. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen