From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Symbolic Interpretation (Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 29 Aug 92 20:12:39 GMT
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks

In article <1992Aug28.155544.15577@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
writes:
> In article <2A9D3AC4.19887@ics.uci.edu> bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J.
Vickers) writes:
> >lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
> >>I also doubt that all of science would fall apart if belief in
> >>evolutionary origin fell by the wayside.
> >
> >No, not all of science would fall apart -- only biology, genetics,
> >geology, astrophysics, anthropology, biochemistry, paleontology,
> >zoology, archaeology, psychology, biophysics, ethnography,
> >linguistics, and probably a dozen other scientific fields I am
> >not recalling.
> 
> And just how would those fall apart?  Oh, I can see paleontology, but
> what about the others?
> 
> Linguistics depends on humans having evolved from primates?
> (apoligies if I picked the weakest link)

  I think I've been here long enough to take a shot:

Biology: The processes of living things that are convoluted will have to have a
different explanation of why they are that way.  (I have a feeling there are
others, but this is one of my weakest subjects)

Genetics: The similarity of genes in creatures of similar structure may differ
more than those of different structures.  This is currently believed to be the
result of independent but similar lines of evolution.  This will have to get a
new explanation.

Geology: Of course every study of rock formation will have to be re-explained in
different terms.  (How did those skeletons get into billion year old rocks?)

Astrophysics: (*) How the effects of the moons tides could be so clearly present
in ancient fossils (esp coral & sea shells)  (note: as they were then)

Anthropology: You said this was obvious, I agree.

Biochemistry: Similar problems to biology, but on a smaller scale.

Paleontology: All those intermediate fossils that have been discovered need to
be explained away.  All fossils of now extinct species must be explained (or at
least why these rocks look like bones and when assembled look just like
skeletons.

Zoology: The classifications of animals is now arbitrary (species within a phyla
are as related as those outside it), and must be restructured according to
whatever theory replaces evolution.  The similarities that have been observed
must be explained.  Breeding would no longer make any sense either, as it is, by
definition, evolution.

Archeology: All the early, primitive, tools need explaining.  Who made them?

Psychology: The use of animals in study would be useless.  All data gathered
that way is meaningless.

Biophysics: Same as biology, but on a different scale from both it and
biochemistry.

Ethnology: Ethnic variety is a differing in the gene pool.  Need some new
understanding of it if evolution is false, because how it came about is, by
definition, evolution.

Linguistics: A total loss of any research done into the development fo the
speech centers of the brain.  Without evolution it must have appeared fully
formed, and many strange aspects of it must be explained.

(*) This assumes young earth creationism replaces evolution.  I am trying to
just refer to what would happen with a loss of evolution, without worrying about
what replaces it, just to prove a point.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15387 talk.origins:10366