I wrote:
><<The ACLU fought against Biblical Creationism. Jim Bell suggested
>that it therefore also excluded "Scientific Creationism". I would
>suspect that the ACLU would not be against "Scientific Creationism"
>if such a scientific theory existed in a reasonably coherent form.>>
Jim Bell wrote:
>Just to be clear, I was responding to Burgy's suggestion to Chuck that
>"Creationism" was not the same as "Biblical Creationism" -- and therefore
>Chuck's post was somehow not "logical." I asked for some evidence, any
>references to show that the ACLU makes any distinction between Creationism,
>Biblical Creationism, Scientific Creationism, or Creation Science. None
>have been forthcoming, because in fact the ACLU does not make those
>distinctions.
I am not sure that anyone has formulated scientific creationism in
such a way as to permit such distinctions. A while ago I had a related
discussion about the status of scientific creation with Paul Nelson.
We both agreed that "scientific creation" must stand on its "own two
feet" and be formulated in such a way as to make postive statements/
predictions (ie. It's of little to no use to formulate it as "Not
Evolution"). We also agreed that scientific creation theories are not
at all able to do that at present. Perhaps one should provide the
ACLU (and the general scientific community) with a viable example
of creation theory before claiming that the ACLU doesn't make a
distinction. Perhaps the ACLU has never had the opportunity to
make an evaluation?
>I suspect the ACLU would never countenance anything suggesting
>non-natural causes to be allowed in a public classroom. It doesn't
>matter what it's called.
YMMV.
>It is fighting to keep "Of Pandas and People" out of the public schools,
>and all that does is critique Darwinism and offer up a theoretical
>alternative.
Would you mind describing this "theoretical alternative"? Are the
axioms and auxillary hypotheses required for making creationism
testible up for verification? In other words, the contention that God
(or something) created organisms separately doesn't by itself describe
the patterns of life observed. Given creation as a starting hypothesis,
I can postulate practically any pattern to life. Only by adding
auxiliary ideas can one formulate a theory with substance -- But can
one test and justify the auxiliary hypotheses or distinguish between them?
For example, Elliott Sober writes:
"[...] The hypothesis that God separately created living things is
testable only when it is conjoined with auxiliary assumptions.
But how is one to know which auxiliary assumptions to believe?
Paley saw God one way [...as making organisms with "perfect"
adaptations - TPI note]; other creationists may prefer a
different picture of what God would be like. Different religions
conceive of God in different ways. And there are conceptions of
God (like the trickster God discussed before [...ie. a god that
created things to look like evolution had occurred - TPI note])
that perhaps are not part of any mainstream religion. How is
one to choose? The fact that some of these conceptions of God
are familiar while others are decidedly odd is no basis for
selecting. What one wants is evidence that one of them is
true and that the rest of them are false. Without any evidence
of this sort, the project of testing the hypothesis that God
separately created the species that populate the living world is
stopped dead.
I do not claim that no one will ever be able to formulate an
argument that shows which auxiliary hypothesis about God is correct.
I do not claim to be omniscient. But, to date, I do not think
that this issue has been resolved satisfactorily. Perhaps one
day, creationism will be formulated in such a way that the
auxiliary assumptions it adopts will be independently supported.
My claim is that no creationist has succeeded in doing this yet."
[Elliot Sober: Philosophy of Biology 1993, Westview Press, Inc.,
Boulder, CO -- p 52]
>Doesn't mention God, doesn't mention Genesis, has a fine essay on
>scientific methodology. But the ACLU is fighting as if William
>Jennings Bryan himself rose from the dead, thumped his Bible, and
>personally walked the book into public classrooms across the land.
As far as I can see, one could substitute "intelligent designer"
for "God" in Sober's passage and still reach the same conclusion.
(I do not see how carefully excluding references to God specifically
helps to make an "alternative" more "scientific".) Basically, I feel
that "scientific" creationists must do more than harp on the current
incompleteness of evolutionary theory and scientific knowledge to gain
acceptance of their alternate ideas. Give us something with real
substance and applicability.
Regards, Tim Ikeda (timi@mendel.berkeley.edu)