From: dweinste@nyx.cs.du.edu (David Hills Weinstein)
Subject: Re: evolution versus creationism
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 14:36:45 GMT

In article <1bbhgrINNeqk@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> hartley@maths.uwa.oz.au (Mike Hartley) writes:
#Many people are under the impression that scientific creationism is
#a contradiction in terms. Recently, the Australian Academy of Science (?)
#put out a document, stating its position on Creation. It stated that
#the theory of evolution, being imperfect and subject to change, was
#therfore a scientific theory, whereas Creation was a matter of faith.
#It stated that Creation, being a matter of faith, wAs therfore a
#religious issue, and should therefore not be taught as science.
#
#Certainly, the fundamentals of creation science are matters of faith -
#namely that roughly 6000yrs ago, God created the world as per Genesis.
#This is a non-negotiable in Creation Science.

And that is why "Creation Science" isn't. If there are no experiments that
can be done, no evidence that can be found, that refutes your theory, then
it *isn't* Science. 

#The details of the theory of evolution are in dispute amongst evolutionists.
#For example, there is the conflict between neo-Darwinism, and the theory
#of punctuated equilibria (assuming I have the names of the theories correct).
#Which I will not give details of here. This is what leads to the assertion
#that "the theory of evolution, being subject to change, is a scientific
#theory."
#
#However, the fundamentals of the theory of evolution are not subject to
#change. If one denies that the universe has been around for billions of
#years, or if one denies that all life evolved from one single self-replicating
#molecule, which formed by chance, then one is no longer an evolutionist.
#These are non-negotiables in the theory of evolution. In that sense,
#evolutionism is just as much a matter of faith as creationism.

That is not true. Science does not have *any* restrictions on what
the results of a Scientific theory, only on what constitutes a Scientific
theory. For a theory to qualify, it must meet the following conditions:

             I. It must not contradict the existing body of evidence.
                Note that it can contradict theories, but not the evidence
                which has been gathered.

            II. It must explain the existing evidence at least as well as
                current competing theories.

           III. It must make predictions about the results of further
                research or experimentation. These predictions must be
                falsifiable (and in turn, make the theory falsifiable).
                      
  If you can devise a "Young Earth" theory that meets those conditions,
you'll find yourself on a plane to Stockholm in a few years.

--Dave
 
--
Dave Weinstein                               Internet: dweinste@nyx.cs.du.edu
Disclaimer: You must be kidding.             GEnie: OLORIN
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, "Let there be light."
And there was still nothing. But you could see it.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU