Re: Exploding Evidence of God's Hand?
Bill Hamilton (hamilton@predator.cs.gmr.com)
Mon, 2 Oct 1995 16:17:33 -0500>Bill
>
>On Tue, 26 Sep 1995 09:36:37 -0500 you wrote:
>
>>Stephen quoted Eisely
>SJ>Each one of these major points demanded a multitude of minor
>>biological adjustments, yet all of this-change of growth rate,
>>lengthened age, increased blood supply to the head, moved apparently
>>with rapidity. It is a dizzying spectacle with which we have nothing
>>to compare. The event is complex, it is many-sided, and what touched
>>it off is hidden under the leaf mold of forgotten centuries.
>>Somewhere in the glacial mists that shroud the past, Nature found a
>>way of speeding the proliferation of brain cells and did it by the
>>ruthless elimination of everything not needed to that end. We lost
>>our hairy covering, our jaws and teeth were reduced in size, our sex
>>life was postponed, our infancy became among the most helpless of any
>>of the animals because everything had to wait upon the development of
>>that fast- growing mushroom which had sprung up in our heads."
>>(Eiseley L., "The Immense Journey", Victor Gollancz: London, 1958
>>p122-123)
>
>SJ>I would like to see all that plausibly explained using purely
>>natural causes! :-)
>
>BH>So would I (using the definition of explanation you are using. But
>>read on...). But perhaps it's useful to remark on what we mean by
>>"explanation". Typically, scientific explanations explain the
>>mechanisms that contribute to an observed phenomena. IOW they
>>explain natural effects in terms of natural causes. It is a mistake
>>(and people on both sides of the origins debate make this mistake) to
>>assume that a scientific explanation explains ultimate causation. It
>>doesn't. The kind of explanation Stephen is asking for is an
>>explanation which gets at fundamental causes -- something totally
>>outside the capability of empirical science.
>
>No. I don't ask for an "explanation which gets at fundamental
>causes". I said, "I would like to see all that plausibly explained
>using purely natural causes".
The sort of explanation you are sking for is not the sort that would
logically be the result of a scientific investigation. Scientists try to
_limit_ the scope of their investigations to maximize the likelihood that
they will be able to conclude something they can back up with evidence.
What you are asking for is far too broad. That is what led me to conclude
you were asking for fundamental causes. And I still say you are. Narrow
your scope.
There is an aspect of science that is and I suspect will always be very
unsatisfying to a young-earth creationist, and possibly also to an
old-earth creationist. That aspect is that real science tends to look at
very small problems, tends to specialize and does not and cannot draw
sweeping conclusions. What Eisely said was not science. It was merely his
opinion.
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)