From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Who does Phillip Johnson think the creationists are?
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:06:36 GMT

In article <2B53B66F.8366@ics.uci.edu>, bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
> Are creationists individuals who seek positive scientific evidence for
> their story of creation?  Or are they those who seek negative evidence
> for the currently accepted scientific view of origins (i.e.,
> evolution)?

Both.
 
> Phrased another way, are creationists merely critics of common
> descent, or do they actually posit a scientific theory supported by
> substantial scientific evidence?  

Creationism relies on the assumption that God exists and was insrumental in the
origin of the universe and everything in it.  Evolution, on the other hand,
relies on the assumption that He doesn't exist, or if He does, He doesn't
interfere with the natural processes of the universe.  Neither of these
assumptions have been proved to be valid.  Yet the assumption made is crucial
to the interpretation of the data.  No one has disproved God's existence, so I
see no reason to prefer one view over the other (from a scientific viewpoint
that is).

> The question is significant, for if
> creationists are just critics, science should be able to (and does)
> subsume their function as such -- there is no need to call these
> individuals "creationists."  However, if creationists are individuals
> actively engaged in providing a scientific foundation for the study of
> origins and life, several other questions must be addressed.  

There are, in fact, institutions dedicated to Creation Science Research.

> What is
> the scientific evidence for creationist claims?  

The "Pre-Cambrian Explosion" is a term used to describe the sudden formation of
life on Earth.  This suddenness supports Creationism.  The fossil record shows
sudden "changes" in animals.  This supports Creationism.  There are thousands
of cases where people have been miraculously healed of ailments (only after
praying to God to be healed).  This supports the theory that God exists, and
therefore, Creationism.

> Who are the
> creationists providing the evidence and making the claims?  

I'm not sure I understand the question.  They are scientists who happen to be
Christians (although some people like Kalki are not Christian).  A specific
example would be Thomas Barnes.  He has written a mainstream textbook on
electricity and magnetism.

> Are there
> any scientific claims made by creationists that have not been
> falsified, and what are they?

Yes.  
     1. God's existence.  Some may believe this is unscientific, but I argue
that it has a profound impact on scientific thought.
     2. Non-constant speed of light (although I for one don't beleive this is
central to Creationism).
     3. Non-constant decay rates (I'll try to get a list of secular sources
that actually show that the decay constants of radioactive substances can
change).

There are probably more, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

> 
> Maybe Phillip Johnson does not care who the creationists are.  Maybe
> he feels that "naturalistic" explanations for the development or
> emergence of life are inadequate and that the study of life should not
> fall under the purview of science.
> 
> Whatever the case, it would be nice to know the answers.

Naturalistic explanations are all well and good if there is no God.  I have yet
to see His existence disproven.  Thus naturalistic explanations are, for the
time being, inadequate.
--Ray Cote