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