From: thayer@odysseus.uchicago.edu (Mike Thayer)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Keywords: creation, "science",God
Organization: University of Chicago  LASR
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 01:04:40 GMT

In article (27029) Ray Cote (RC) writes (responding to Dr. Pepper (DP))
DP> Are you saying there *is* no theory? What is "Creation Science" then? It's a
DP> strange science that has no theory.
DP> 

RC:I'm saying that I don't know how much of a theory they [CRS] have.  Apparently
RC:it is not complete.

>RC> However here is the Theory of Creationism in a nutshell: God
>RC> created the universe.
> 
DP> Here is my rebuttle: No evidence.
> 

[Whimper, moan, but what do you MEAN, no EVIDENCE?]

RC:Do you see the irony of this statement? Every time a Creationist brings up the
RC:gaps in the fossil record, Evolutionists say "Lack of evidence does not
RC:contradict evolution." Now you're using the same argument against my theory.

[Yes, but evolution has evidence to support it, physical evidence.  The gaps
in the fossil record (such as they may be) do not contradict the idea that
evolution occurred.  Where is your physical, reproducible, testable, evidence,
Ray?]

RC:Anyway, let me give you some evidence (although hardly proof): The first law of
RC:thermodynamics says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only
RC:changed from one form to another.  The second law says that the amount of
RC:entropy in the universe is decreasing.  This means that the amount of energy
RC:that can be put to useful work is decreasing.  From this we get the idea of the
RC:heat death of the universe.  Now if we go backwards in time we see that the
RC:entropy of the universe is decreasing.  Eventually we get to a point where
RC:there is no entropy.  So before that point either the laws of physics no longer
RC:hold (no evidence of this), or God created the universe.
RC:--Ray Cote

I have been reading Ray's "jousts" with the talk.origins folk for quite some 
time now, and I have yet to see any evidence that he has the slightest clue
as to the difference between SCIENCE and THEOLOGY.  For example, a statement
such as "God created the Universe", above, is fine and grand from a theological
or philosophical standpoint, because:
	
1) You can't prove it
2) You can't DISprove it

See?  No problem.  If one wishes to believe that God or the Great Hairy Muffin
Thrower or Odin or whom(what)ever CREATED the universe, that's fine, because,
odds are, we'll never know.  However, a statement such as the above is NOT
SCIENCE.  People on this newsgroup have wasted LOTS and LOTS of effort and
bandwidth trying to convince "Creationists" (read, individuals like Ray),
that in order for a theory to be "scientific", at least according to the 
commonly accepted usage (I know I'm setting myself up here, but that's the
way it is) of "scientific", that it must be:

1) TESTABLE
2) FALSIFIABLE (follows from #1)
3) REPEATABLE (also follows from #1)

So how does your theory satisfy these criteria, Ray?  Is the existence of God
TESTABLE? (yes, this is an argumentem_ad_CAPSLOCK, but I'm trying not to go
overboard with it.)  That is, can you tell me how I could prove the existence
of God in a repeatable, verifiable fashion? The burden of proof is on you now,
Ray; we already have proof that evolution occurred.  Again, where is your
evidence?  And please, don't tell me about the "thousands of people
who have personally experienced God in their lives", or some such nonsense.  
Such information is (at best) questionable scientifically, because it cannot
stand up to the scrutiny of requirements #2 and #3 above, i.e., I can't go into
a lab and observe the effects of "God" in a repeatable experiment, nor can I
construct (no matter how hard I try) a theory which would REQUIRE the NON-
existence of "God".  For all I know, these people all ate bad Swiss cheese 
with their lunches that day.  Not to be flippant, but clearly this sort of 
thing is not in the scientific domain, but it more appropriately
belongs in the realm of philosophy.  And remember, philosophy is great, but
if you run an experiment, that's closer to the real world than anything else you might experience.
Oh, and by the way, I'd check on your "entropy of the universe is decreasing"
argument above.  I suspect that you'll find it to be wrong, under closer
examination (say, about 3 seconds' worth.)


Tah tah,
Mike Thayer

-- 
Laboratory For Astrophysics		"Is it not the height of silent humour
and Space Research			 to cause an unknown change
(but I don't speak for them...)		 in the Earth's climate?"
University of Chicago		        "Cry...for the Fire..."