From: bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Reply-To: bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:17:47 GMT

riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>	I disagree. The problem is not "fundamentalist/creatist" (your
>words) logic. It is whether or not their "data" is valid and relevant.
>If that data IS valid and relevant, there is no reason to criticize their
>theory as unscientific. Most of the valid criticism of creationism centers
>on whether the "facts" they present are, in fact, facts. Anybody can make
>up a theory.

There are several flaws in the content of your paragraph above.
Anybody can make up a theory, but not a scientific one.  The
"it's just a theory" claim is made by creationists all the time
in an attempt to mock evolution.  However, a scientific theory
is not a guess; it's a model that is supported by a large (if
not overwhelming) sum of evidence.  Scientific theories make
predictions, they are prone to modification, and they make no
appeals to authority.  Creationism does not pass muster on any
of these points.  It certainly makes no predictions -- it simply
states a scientifically unfounded conclusion.  It is not
open to modification, for it is dogmatically inspired and
absolute.  And it makes constant appeals to Biblical or supernatural
authority rather than to the evidence.  The biggest reason
creationism is nonscientific is that there is no evidence for it
and there is no coherent scientific theory to explain it.

You make the mistake of confusing a hypothesis with a theory.
Evolution is much more than a hypothesis; it is a scientifically
factual process whose mechanisms are explained by a thoroughly
grounded scientific theory.  It makes predictions.  For a
splendid example of this, refer to the talk.origins discussions
on the naked mole rat.  A scientist unaware of their existence
predicted the characteristics and probable existence of such
creatures based on evolutionary modes.  Another prediction made
by evolutionary theory is that no life form which is reproductively
unfit will survive to pass its genes on in any significant way.
Evolutionary theory is also prone to modification.  It is
happening all the time.  The transformations from catastrophism,
Lamarckianism, and gradualist notions of evolutionary theory are
some of the broader modifications that occurred within the
theory.  The modern synthesis of genetics and Darwinian evolution is
one of the most striking examples of a major alteration of
evolutionary theory.  Net biologists and bio-nuts like
Chris Colby and Stan Friesen can assuredly provide you with
more recent examples (eg. punctuated equilibrium).  Finally,
evolution does not use appeals to authority.  No dogmatic script
is ever consulted; only the evidence and the theories supported
by the evidence are necessary to construct evolutionary theory.
This is not to say that some people do not defend evolution
dogmatically; humans are fallible.  But evolution stands on its
own.

>	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.

At its most simplistic level, evolution is based on random variables.
But that randomness is directed by clearly non-random processes.  Take
for example natural selection: it does not randomly choose who gets
to survive.  Instead, only the individuals who are capable of reproducing
are selected for.  All of science is probabilistic; the determinism
you seek is unrealistic and unsupported by the facts.  For example,
if you were to ask me the exact trajectories of 5000 bouncing balls
enclosed in a large room, I would be unable to predict them with any
accuracy at all.  Even using a computer, I would not be able to factor
in temperature, friction, air resistance or even the slight differences
between the balls.  Does that make the scientific study of physics and
thermodynamics any less tractable?  Of course not.  We look at the
system as a whole and derive more general, more probabilistic
predictions.

Finally, although evolutionary theory makes predictions, it is primarily
a historical science.  It attempts to explain, scientifically, the way
life has evolved.  A benefit is that it gives us understanding into the
manner in which life will continue to evolve in the future.  But like
astrophysics, linguistics, and other historical sciences, evolutionary
theory dwells on the processes and mechanisms that allowed change (or
stasis) to occur.  Much of (but hardly all) the evidence for evolution
comes from natural history, yet there is no reason to assume that the
processes derived from the study of that history will not hold true in
the future.

--
 ___            _    _     _  _        _
(  _) ___ ___ _( )__( )_  ( )( ) o  __( ) _  ___  ___  ___
(___)(_) (__=) (_)_ (_)_   (__) (_)(_((_)(_'(__=)(_) _(_)
Brett J. Vickers (bvickers@ics.uci.edu)