From: zerucha@shell.portal.com (Thomas E Zerucha)
Subject: Re: Origins
Organization: Portal Communications Company -- 408/973-9111 (voice) 408/973-8091 (data)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:36:54 GMT

>From: Christopher J. Monsour (monsour@zaphod.uchicago.edu)
[prologue deleted]

>(1) that all men are descended from a first man and first woman;
>(2) that the first parents were not the children of beasts;
>(3) that the first woman was in some way derived from the first man.

[more good discussion deleted for space]

>Should we investigate concerning the origin of life.  Certainly!  We should
>simply recognize the proper limits of science and recognize that it can
>never be expected to explain miracles.  The discussion about evolution
>really does not seem relevant to this list except in two ways:

One thing which I may have pointed out is that science should be
investigating the origin of life, not simply trying to shoehorn any
evidence found so that it does not contradict evolution.  One of my
cries of "Foul!" is that if you limit investigation to purely
naturalistic explanations, you will find, or make up naturalistic
explanations, even if the event didn't happen that way, nor if it
contradicts other evidence or scientific laws or is simply absurd.

>(1) Some people (not people on this list) think that science can determmine
>the origin of the human race.	Anyone who can actually use science to
>determine the origin of the human race hasn't found his calling in life--he
>ought to be working in a police forensics lab here in Chicago.

It depends on what sense of origin you mean.  If evolution happens as
claimed, and is applicable where the evolutionists hold it to be
applicable, then two primates that were not human produced at least one
human offspring, The human was likely able to mate with the pre-humans,
(two humans produced simultaneously would be against probability) and
some offspring would be fully human, eventually becoming a separate
species.  This is more scientific sounding, but contradicts the three
points above, and it isn't even a gradual progression where you could
not draw the line between nonhuman and human.

>(2) Evolutionary theories (without prejudice to their truthfulness) have
>corrupted language (or rather many people have corrupted their own
>language under the influence of such theories).  People think that if a rodent
>can evolve into a bear, what meaning is then left to the words "rodent"
>and "bear"?  Plenty, for even if evolution happens, no individual rodent ever
>changed into anything but an adult rodent.

I am not quite sure what you mean, although I would agree that a
semantic problem exists.  I see a difference between Evolution as
Theory (scientific investigation of mutation and speciation, etc.), and
Evolution as Paradigm (a system of interpreting facts).  There is also a
dichotomy between Empirical and Historical science.  Experiments tend to
be much more certain than reconstructions, though the difference eludes
many. Your example of Forensic science is the closest thing to a bridge
between the two, unfortunately, we aren't left with much telling us what
happened before the human race existed, so any story can be made to
sound plausible.

---
zerucha@shell.portal.com - main email address
Thomas Zerucha / 24075 Lee Baker / Southfield MI 48075 - hardcopy
(313)594-4941 - work phone
Pax Domini sit sempre vobiscum.  St. Gabriel the Archangel, Pray for us.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic