Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill
From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Philosophy of science and Creationism
Message-ID: <98@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Oct-85 00:13:47 EST
Article-I.D.: utastro.98
Posted: Thu Oct 24 00:13:47 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 31-Oct-85 01:00:10 EST
References: <11384@rochester.UUCP> <615@hou2g.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 56

> >I don't see any way that metaphysical assertions about the existence or
> >nonexistence of God (or the Damager-God, for that matter :-) can ever be 
> >proven.  Correct me if I am wrong, but how could one establish the truth
> >or falsehood of such propositions?

> Well, (by one definition) God is supposed to maximally benevolent and 
> omnipotent, which seems to have observational consequences that could be
> falsified ....

But whenever this argument is brought up, it is countered by defining it
out of existence.  You know, "God's ideas of good are beyond the 
understanding of limited human minds."  Such arguments may not cut much 
ice with you or me, but they are impossible to defeat as long as the 
person you are trying to convince accepts the logic of Creationism.

> >I agree that from the point of view of science, these assertions have
> >been falsified.  But I don't think that the issue.  To me the issue is
> >whether Creationists sidestep such falsifications when they arise by 
> >resorting to the unfalsifiable hypothesis of an omnipotent God. 

> Well, although I can't argue with the example (omitted to save space)
> which you gave concerning Henry Morris's views on the age of the universe,
> I don't think that's the typical pattern.  In most cases they try to deny
> the evidence against them.  So, insofar as they hold to falsifiable claims,
> they are within the domain of science; thus their theory is "scientific"
> in the neutral sense which does not connote truth or evidential support.

In my experience, Morris' views are quite typical.  My reading of
Creationist literature shows it to be replete with similar examples.
Bringing in the Omnipotent Creator may be the last resort, but it's 
always there in the wings to use when no other apologetic will work.

But in any case, when Creationists deny the obvious fact that their
scientific claims have been falsified, it doesn't matter much which 
argument they use.  *By their logic* they have not been falsified, 
and indeed *by their logic* they cannot be falsified.  All this goes 
to show is that Creationist logic != scientific logic.  The game 
they are playing remains firmly rooted in the pseudoscientific camp.

The usual response of Creationists to this challenge is to claim that
neither creation nor evolution is falsifiable (and therefore that both
have equal rights in the classroom).  Philip Kitcher has written an 
interesting article on this question (J. College Science Teaching, 
December 1984/January 1985 Issue, pp. 168-173).  While I disagree
with Kitcher's initial premise, it is a thoughtful article that merits
attention.

-- 
Glend.	I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hot.	Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you
	do call for them?    --  Henry IV Pt. I, III, i, 53

	Bill Jefferys  8-%
	Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (USnail)
	{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill	(UUCP)
	bill@astro.UTEXAS.EDU.				(Internet)