A Common Misconception among Evolutionists Re: Creation Science

Ray Lanthier rlanthier at earthlink.net
Sat Oct 10 13:36:09 EST 1998

Ok I surrender semantically. The faith, you speak of when discounting Creation Science is religious
But the mere fact of belief in a creator does not dis-credit one's scientific hypothesis. If that
were true all of Newtonian physics is unworthy of consideration because of his Deism.
In my understanding , the creationist explanation offers a non-deterministic view of the existence
of species.
Species or proto-species are like templates which manifest according to environment but are not
generated by selection pressure. Their formation is not the result of aeons of evolution , tied
deterministically to their environmental niche. Now this theory may be false, but it is not 'off

taguebw at REMOVEwfu.edu wrote:

> In article <361F8948.37DF7454 at earthlink.net>, Ray Lanthier
> <rlanthier at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Since you have softened somewhat the antagonism between faith and
> reason, I can agree.But perhaps
> > you need to assess your philosophical assumptions, more closely - not
> semantic distinctions.
> > The Socratic axiom "Knowledge is virtue" shows that knowledge requires
> faith , a least faith in
> > one's Self
> > (Socrates 'inner god' from which the word enthusiasm was derived).
> > Your view, on the other hand, that Creation science is a contradiction
> > prejudices the discussion in a way that is most unscientific.
> Well, again you are confusing Faith and faith, as I discussed them in my
> last post. My sense is that you do this on purpose to confuse the issue.
> Let me say it again: on questions of Faith (existence of God, divintiy of
> Christ, the existence of a creator), science is silent. The scientific
> method is
> not designed to ask or answer such questions.
> Given the definition of science and the scientific method, creation
> science must be a contradiction in terms.
> It strikes me as odd that someone who would try to use science to address
> questions that science is unable to answer would accuse anyone of being
> unscientific. "Hey you black kettle," said the pot.
> > Having a degree in science, and being a computer programmer, I know
> quite well how science is
> > done.You need to read up on all the thestic references made by great
> scientists like Einstein,
> > Newton and Kepler.
> Theistic references of great scientists are irrelevant to whether or not
> the methods of science can be used to ask questions of Faith. I am sure
> that many scientists look upon the results of their experiments as
> *personal* evidence in a higher power. The emphasis is on personal. That
> personal belief is not science; it is Faith. Someone else could look upon
> the same results and say: these results tell me that the planets move in
> elliptical orbits in a predictable manner and no more. The scientific
> conclusion from the data is the same; the support of Faith from the data
> is different.
> > I am not digressing into semantics when I refuse to dismiss out of hand
> an alternative explanation
> > of how biological species came into being, with the knee-jerk reflex
> that it is 'religious'.
> It is not a "knee-jerk" reflex. I simply have never seen any good
> scientific argument or data in favor of an alternate explanation to
> evolution. All I have ever seen from creation science are specious
> arguments as to why it can't happen ("Would an explosion in a book factory
> produce a bible? No. So evolution can't happen") All I have ever seen from
> creation science are claims that the methods are invalid ("Radiodating
> doesn't work. Therefore the earth is 6000 years old"). All I have ever
> seen from creation science is finding one person who is a scientist or a
> Ph.D. who disagrees with some aspect of evolutionary fact and theory or
> finding some legimate disagreement between scientists and saying, "See
> there is disagreement on this small issue in evolutionary thought, so the
> whole theory must be wrong." All I have ever seen is people dragging up
> the little bits of data or urban legend that support their FAITH while
> ignoring a mountain of data that does not ("People have found human and
> dinosaur footprints together.)" I simply have never seen one shred of data
> that supports an alternative to evolution, not thru the ICR's literature
> or website, not through the Watchtower, not on these newsgroups, not in
> personal discussions.
> Please, give me one data point, just one.
> What I have seen is a mountain of data supporting evolution. Massive
> numbers of fossils. Multiple *independent* means of accurately dating
> geological formations and their associated fossils. Geological data from
> plate techtonics. Biogeographical data. Mountains of molecular biological
> data. Evidence from comparitive anatomy. Detailed well-reasoned
> theoretical arguments about evolution. Experiments in the laboratory on
> directed evolution. Population and field studies on speciation in the
> wild. The massive record of breeding of crops and domestic animals.
> Mendel.
> This huge mountain of data which seems to get purposely ignored by
> creation "scientists" screams evolution. AND IT IS COMPLETELY SILENT ON
> > You must understand that the culture is highly 'scientistic' by which I
> mean a blind faith in
> > science's ability to prove everything that needs to be proven. The now
> defunct Omni magazine was
> > dedicated to this religion.
> > The toughest dogmas of today are laid down by scientistic orthodoxy.
> > Questioning the unexamined assumption of the doctrine of Darwinian
> evolution is tantamount to
> > heresy.
> First, evolution and science is not a religion, it is science; there is a
> difference. So don't couch it in terms of religion.
> Second, you can write this and say you understand science!?! Questioning
> assumptions IS what science is all about. There have been thousands of
> theories that have been tossed out of science (evolutionary, biological
> and otherwise).
> The very reason we (meaning we scientists) get so heated in these
> discussions is that, if these is one theory that in its broadest outlines,
> has been consistent with mountains of new data, has withstood attacks from
> science and the unscientific, it is evolution. It is the basis of all
> biology. As much as it has been questioned, it has survived.
> a few more electrons,
> Brian
> --
> Remove "REMOVE" to reply

More information about the Bioforum mailing list