Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 UW 5/3/83; site uw-june Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon From: gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: A new voice. Message-ID: <45@uw-june> Date: Fri, 12-Jul-85 09:01:37 EDT Article-I.D.: uw-june.45 Posted: Fri Jul 12 09:01:37 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 12:55:22 EDT References: <349@scgvaxd.UUCP> <81@rtp47.UUCP> <352@scgvaxd.UUCP> <536@psivax.UUCP> <357@scgvaxd.UUCP> Organization: U of Washington Computer Science Lines: 61 Excuse me, I seem to be losing my patience. >>[Stanley Friesen] >> 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. >[Dan Boskovich] >The three theories may be independant of one another, but that does not >mean that they are not related or can not be tied together. This is >net.origins not net.evolution. In this newsgroup all of these theories >ARE tied together. Argh! I just get through telling you that creation and evolution are not polar opposites or the only two possibilities, and you go and claim that the definition of this newsgroup limits descussion to only those two positions. It does *not*! This is net.origins, not net.creation-vs- evolution. It is for discussion about origins, and the possibilities include subsets of the evolution group of theories, theories that involve neither evolution nor creation, and theories that involve both. Biblical creation and big-bang/abiogenesis/evolution are the most discussed positions because they are the most popularly held. Arbitrarily limiting discussion to only two possibilities is stupid! Tell me, when one tosses a coin, which way up does it land? (the only two possibilities I am willing to consider are heads and tails. Well, which is it? Surely those *are* the only possibilities.) >The creationist position is an attempt to replace three interrelated >theories with a single multi-phase theory. Matter, planets, simple and >complex life can be attributed to a super-natural origin, or a naturalistic >origin. Either way you are tieing the three together. I have always thought this natural/supernatural distinction rather bogus. Evolution is not the only naturalistic theory (one could, for instance, have theories about *naturalistic* creation), and Biblical creation is not the only supernatural theory (by a long shot! How many religions are there in the world? And then there's theistic evolution...) Actually, one can think of a dichotomy among origins theories: did something always exist, or did things suddenly come into being? Note that biblical creation probably falls ino the first category, since people tend to think of God as eternal. Big-bang/abiogenesis/evolution, on the other hand, can fit into either category: cyclic universe, or big bang out of nothing. (that's right, nothing. No creator.) The scientific answer to this ultimate question is that we don't know; there just isn't (anywhere near) enough evidence. -- Human: Gordon Davisson ARPA: gordon@uw-june.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,decvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon