From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Subject: Re: predictions of creation model
Keywords: scientific creationism
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 12:40:12 GMT

    Thank you for the responses to this table of "predictions".
I think that the material presented by Morris in the table is
important and interesting because it shows a profound misunderstanding
of what "evolution" (what I prefer to call "conventional science")
is about.  I'd bet that the majority of the people don't recognize
that the assumptions on which this table seems to be based are
completely wrong. 
    It seems to be that many of the "creationist" camp lump a lot
of things under the title of "evolution".
    First of all, the word "evolution" seems to be taken by the
creationists to mean a process of increasing complexity, while the
scientists just take it to mean change -- how many times have we
seen here the definition of evolution as descent with change?
There is even brought out (by the creationists) another term, 
"devolution", to mean a process of decreasing complexity, or, in 
the famous misuse of thermodynamics, increasing disorder or (shudder) 
entropy.  At least since Cambrian times (please correct me if I am 
wrong here, this is just a layman's opinion) there has been no 
overall increase in the complexity of life on earth.
    Point two.  All of conventional science is not evolution.  Not
even all of "the theory of evolution" is evolution.  The theory of
evolution contains a lot of elements, for example, "natural 
selection" (which, IMHO, is the basic *theoretical* part of the
theory of evolution -- that is, natural selection is a theoretical
construct which is invoked to explain how evolution is constrained
to produce the particular varieties of life which we observe over
time).  People talked about evolution long before Darwin -- it was
just Darwin who managed to first explain how it could be fitted 
into a comprehensive theory with many other elements.
    Next, the word "evolution" seems to be used by many creationists
to describe events other than biological evolution, as if all kinds
of evolution were much of the same thing.  I have seen postings
which have identified all of the following with biological evolution:
Linguistic evolution
Cultural evolution
Stellar evolution
Of course, in each of these there is change over time (I hesitate
to use the word "descent").  But the mechanisms are entirely
different.  (Haven't some people referred to cultural evolution as 
Lamarkian -- inheritance of acquired characteristics -- rather than 
Darwinian?)  It's hard for me to see how one can talk of stellar
evolution in the same way as biological evolution.  On the one hand,
one has the change of a single entity over time, and on the other,
of generations of new entities; on the one hand, distinct things,
and on the other, all living things which are genetically related.
    I think that these profound misunderstandings are at the heart
of a lot of the controversy.

-- 
Tom Scharle                |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA