From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creation vs. evolution
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:06:09 GMT
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University

In article <n0e24t@ofa123.fidonet.org> Richard.Rearden.@.914/901@f8.n10.z1.fidonet.org writes:
>        This is the first time I have even read this net and it is fascinating
>to read the diversity of messages as well as the diversity of origins of the
>messages.  My favorite subject is Creation.  Most of what I read are broken
>conversations, but what I get is that that there is little evidence being
>given
>from either side on this subject, weather scientific or otherwise.

In my experience, meterology (weather science) has little pertinence
to questions of origins.

>        Just to establish a little basis on the subject.  Last time I was in a
>biology
>at a local junior college, the instructor, who came highly recommended,
>start his class with this statement.  "Evolution is a fact, and there is
>nothing
>that can prove to me otherwise."

Your instructor was something of a fool.  The main difference between
evolution and creation, is that scientists are perfectly willing to
accept disproof of evolution (whereas creationists won't do the same
for creationism).  It's just that there is no evidence which has
offered said disproof.

>In its own right evolution is a religion.  Unfortunately, most will
>deny
>that because that would put take it out of the realm of science and fact, and
>place it with religion and faith.

No, most deny that evolution is a religion because evolution is not a
religion.  Evolution is a fact, for which explanations have been
offered by several theories.  These theories are predictive models.
The predictions these models make are falsifiable.  This makes these
theories scientific.  No creationist on talk.origins or elsewhere has
ever put forth a predictive, falsifiable theory of creation.
Therefore, creation is not a science.  Since evolution is a science,
and creation is a religion, there is no inherent conflict between the
two.  The conflict arises when people try to shoehorn creationism into
a scientific framework.

>  So, lets look at the facts. 

Oh, good.  Facts.  Substantial evidence.  I like facts.

 If I wanted to
>prove to somebody I killed somebody yesterday, how would I prove it.  I would
>tell you what happened, show you a few items to support my story, and if it
>all
>stuck together, you would believe
>me.

Wait, where are the facts?

  Now lets say I tell you I killed somebody
>40 years ago.  I have no evidence to support me, not even a convincing tone.
>Would you believe me.  You say no.

Where is the substantial evidence?

[unsupported implications of a link between evolution & Nazism deleted]

>  Now, back on the subject at hand. 

Oh, good.  The facts must be coming now...

>For
>me to prove I have committed a murder, the average person would expect some
>proof.  Most would want a lot of proof.  If I showed the you the smoking gun,
>where I did it, and how I did it.  Would that prove that I did it?  Or
>would that prove only that I knew more about the crime than you.  You would
>first question my sanity, and my judgement, but it I explained myself enough
>times you would probably believe me.

Nope, I guess not.  No facts here.  Just a bunch of babbling.

>  This is the way it is with evolution.
>They claim many facts support their theory,  and the Creationist claim the
>same
>facts support theirs as well.  You see, Evolution and Creation both similar in
>many ways.  Both are based on a belief system of the past.  In other words,
>the
>claims of both can not be scientifically proven.

*Yawn*.  The creationists cannot claim that any facts support their
theory until they offer a predictive, falsifiable theory for the facts
to support.  That would make creationism scientific (not correct, mind
you, just scientific).  Evolution offers predictive, falsifiable
theories.  This makes evolution scientific (not correct, mind you,
just scientific.  It is the mountains of evidence supporting the
predictions which makes evolution correct).

I repeat.  You cannot claim that facts support your theory, because
you have no theory.  Stop talking about such things until you offer us
a scientific theory of creation.

  A person cannot take a
>continent into a lab.  Put pressure on it, and make it divide.  Even if they
>could, it still could not prove that is exactly what happened before.  So,
>then
>we have two theories, one is taught as fact in all the public schools, the
>other
>is looked upon as a myth, or an allegory at best.  

We do not have two theories.  We have one theory (actually, we have
several theories, all coming under the umbrella of evolution) and one,
well, myth.  Or is it an allegory?  Actually, I should say that you
may feel free to believe in creation if you wish; you merely cannot
call it scientific until you have a predictive, falsifiable theory.
And, following from that, you cannot teach it as science until you
have a predictive, falsifiable theory.

>There are many facts to
>support both.  But, just as the clues left a t a crime scene don't tell
>exactly
>how, when or why the crime took place,  you know it did.  For all you can see 
>is
>the result.  Two different detectives may come up with two different theories.
>The irony is that most Evolutionist, refuse to even take the Creationist 's
>theory into spectulation.  Nor even the average heathen.  And here is why.
>If Creation is true,  then there would have to be a God.  If there is a God,
>we would be obligated to follow his rules.  

Again:  evolution does not preclude a god.  You will find that many of
the scientists on t.o are Christians.  

<Aside to Kurt vonRoeschlaub:  I, for one, would appreciate an
"Orthogonality of Science and Religion" FAQ.>

>Most people, don't even want to
>consider that.  Second, most evolutionists refuse to even admit there are
>massive flaws in the evolutionary theory.  

If such flaws exist, you must post them.  Otherwise what do we have to
admit?  

> Rick Rearden.

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * I borrowed Dad's jack.  I'll *
* Program in Evolution,           *   return it and his rivet    * (<-Don't
*      Ecology, and Behavior      *        gun tomorrow          *     ask)
* Indiana University, Bloomington *            -Bob              *