From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Re: predictions of creation model
Keywords: scientific creationism
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 07:17:09 GMT

Somebody has given a second source to this list, the "Abusing Science"
title, q. v. previous article.

I know that people have been dilligant in showing how seientific findings
have contradicted nearly every Creation Model perdiction, with the
strongest evidance against it toward the top of the list. Now, I have
the idea that if you want to understand the agenda, reverse the list,
don't deal with evidance and argue from emotion. Then you have a good
idea for the motivation of Creationism. See my discussion after the
quote of the list.

This list, with both the citations noted should be put in the FAQ.

>In <1992Apr4.145757.2876@news.nd.edu> scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle) writes:

>>Scientific Creationism, ed. Henry M. Morris, Creation-Life Publishers, 1974.
>>   Page 13, table:
>>                                      Basic Predictions of
>>                          -----------------------------------------
>>Category                  Evolution Model          Creation Model
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Structure of Natural Law  Constantly Changing      Invariable

>>Galactic Universe         Galaxies Changing        Galaxies Constant

>>Structure of Stars        Stars Changing into      Stars Unchanged
>>                           Other Types

>>Other Heavenly Bodies     Building Up              Breaking Down

>>Types of Rock Formations  Different in Different   Similar in All "Ages"
>>                           "Ages"

>>Appearance of Life        Life Evolving from       Life Only from Life
>>                                   Non-Life 

>>Array of Organisms        Continuum of Organisms   Distinct Kinds of 
>>                                                       Organisms

>>Appearance of Kinds       New Kinds Appearing      No New Kinds Appearing
>> of Life

>>Mutations in Organisms    Beneficial               Harmful

>>Natural Selection         Creative Process         Conservative Process

>>Age of Earth              Extremely Old            Probably Young

>>Fossil Record             Innumerable Transitions  Systematic Gaps

>>Appearance of Man         Ape-Human Intermediates  No Ape-Human 
>>                                                       Intermediates

>>Nature of Man             Quantitatively Superior  Qualitatively Distinct
>>                           to Animals                  From Animals

>>Origin of Civilization    Slow and Gradual         Contemporaneous with 
>>                                                       Man

I think that the last three items drive the rest of this. If Man is assumed
to be different by definiton from the rest of the animals, by having a
teleology, which the animals do not, and if his nature, especially conscious
and moral nature is defined to be distinct, with the aim of setting up
Civilization, note capitol, as some kind of moral quest, a progression
toward Good, then the rest of the items can be made to agree with this
via no evidance and by force of argument. This is the basis for creationism
and there is no doubt that it is a religious notion, only.

The significance of the teleology of Mankind given in the Old Testement
cannot be understated. It can be used with no further evidance to derive
all the rest of the creation items on this list. If Man is divinely created
for a divine purpose and given a mission from God either to live morally or to
recover His favor in this or a later life, then none of the other items
matters, especially if the physical universe is seen as some kind of fallen
realm, broken off from the perfection in Heaven. Why argue that the methods
used to understand the physical universe have any value, if the goal is
to regain Heaven? Unless you appreciate this "logic" you will not understand
what you are up against.

Of course, it is silly for people who think this way to go and invent the
rest of the characterization ad hoc, but they are willing to appear to play
by "rational" rules. Some are even deluded enough to think that they posess
some impartial understanding of nature thereby.

The rest of the items are based on the assumption of a young earth. There
isn't time for processes to work, for the universe and life to evolve. So,
the young earth thesis serves a different purpose from merely vindicating
Bishop Usher's 6,000 year old guess, nowhere in the Bible is the earth
given an explicit age, but it nips nature in the bud, as it takes long
periods of time for nature to operate and we can't have blind processes
userping what is God's realm, can we? :-)

Do you see how the progression of the items works from most testable,
generally, to least testable at the end of the list? And how if you
reverse the list and accept the first three, the ones about Human
nature and origins as fed to us in our religious heritage, that the
rest follows, ad hoc, if you demand a young earth?

Bruce Salem

Newsgroups: talk.origins