Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:30:32 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>In article <2A9D467B.24114@ics.uci.edu> bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
>>riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>	Methinks you protest too much. The part of my article that you
>chose not to respond to stated that creationism is an antitheory, designed
>to counter the theory of evolution. My real complaint is that you
>and many, many others have stated repeatedly and dogmatically that
>if we just were intellectually honest and followed the data, it would
>automatically lead us to believe in evolution. That is clearly what
>Steven Jay Gould means when he states that evolution is a fact.

Well, if you have another interpretation to the data, I would be interested
in hearing it.

Also, when we say evolution is a fact, we mean that "changes in a
populations's gene pool over time" have been observed.  The theory is trying
to explain how it happens.

>	I would really like to know what your definition of a 
>"scientifically factual process" is supposed to be. The Marxists
>claimed that they had a "scientifically factual process" as well
>(objective, too). We have not disproved evolution as a means of
>explaining the rise of man any more than we have disproved Marxism
>as a means of explaining human society. But do you not see that
>simply avowing evolutionary theory as being the only "right" 
>basis to look at these issues automatically limits what we can determine,
>yes scientifically determine ? Darwin and Lamarck could be just as wrong

Lamark was shown wrong ages ago.

>as Galen and Aristotle were, but we have not found the way to
>extract the data yet which proves them so. Does this mean that mankind
>should stop trying to explain the unknown, or to challenge "received
>truth" ? If all theory (okay, wise guy, hypotheses) has/have to pass
>muster in relation to previously "proved" hypotheses, is this 
>really science ? This is what Medieval scholasticism taught. It is
>quite possible to be logically consistent, intellectually balanced,
>and just plain wrong if you are working off the wrong data. I would
>have thought this point to be relatively non-controversial.

Well, first you'd have to show how the data is wrong.  I take that back, you
first need to find out what the data is first.

>>>	But let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. If creationism
>>>does a lousy job at documenting the past, how well does evolutionary theory
>>>predict the future. Geez, well, you know evolution is based on pure
>>>randomness, isn't it ? Too much randomness out there to PREDICT future
>>>development of species, no ? Show me the scientific study of biological
>>>diversity which explains what is happening out there NOW. And don't try
>>>telling me that you don't have enough data.
>>[bouncing balls example deleted.]
>	It may, in fact, be that what I am interested in doing is predicting
>the path of a specific ball. If you accept the assertion that underlying
>the "noise" there are really relatively constrained "objective processes",
>then your thinking is much closer to Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and Karl 
>Marx than you may be willing to admit. This is not to say that either
>aggregatiing data at a high level or drawing conclusions based on
>statistical probabilties is scientifically wrong - I certainly won't 
>let you box me into THAT corner without a fight. But what lies at the
>bottom: casuality or numerical probability ? Are you prepared to take and
>defend a position on this ?

First off, evolution is not pure randomness.  Anyone who says that really
doesn't know beans about the theory.  I would suggest trying to find out
more about it before trying to blast it.

Secondly, on prediction, the ability to predict what is happening now nature
does not affect a theory's validity or its ability to explain the past.
Too say that the theory is invalid because you can't predict the future of
species is silly.  Weather is governed by Classical Mechanics (which I take
to be Newtonian Mech., Thermo, and a bit of electromagnetism in this case).
Would you say that these theories are invalid because we can't predict the
weather?

>	As a historian, I would not hang my hat on evolution. There is not
>enough data there to prove beans. Whether Darwin was right or not depends
>quite solely on his ability to have made a calculated scientific 
>wild-ass guess. On the other hand, we have the option to believe in a Creator,

Well, evolution has some a long way since Darwin.  I am interested in your
claim that their isn't enough data for evolution.  Exactly how would you
quantify that.

>at the minimum out there with a set of cosmic dice, designing creatures
>and experimenting with gene pools. The contrast in beliefs is clear - the 
>rest is an argument over the data.
>
>Bill R.


|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15291 talk.origins:10289