On Mon, 16 Jun 1997 10:13:08 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
[...]
>SJ>It is interesting that you now accept that "cosmic evolution" is
>"evolution". We *are* making progress! ;-)
PM>No we aren't
If you now accept that "cosmic evolution" is "evolution", then we *are*
making progress, whether you care to admit it or not.
>SJ>My point was that *in the case of origins*, the line between "myth"
>and "science" becomes blurred. This is seen by the fact that when
>Sagan writes a "description of cosmic evolution as revealed by...
>science" it has "the sound of epic myth".
PM>But it is simply a description of cosmic evolution as revealed by the
>science of our time. No myth here unlike creation.
Sagan's actual "description of cosmic evolution as revealed by the
science of our time" in Cosmos pp337-338, is *very* compatible with
the description of "creation" in Genesis 1.
>SJ>Wilson admits that out that *in the case of origins*, "evolution" as
>"revealed by science" is a form of creation myth: "...Every generation
>needs its own creation myths, and these are ours..." (Wilson E.O., et
>al., "Life on Earth", 1973, p624)
PM>Again, science not religious faith which does not allow a change of its
>'myth'.
Why "change" when it is right first time? Science, originally thought
the universe was infite in time, but now reluctantly, science has had
to concede what Genesis 1:1 claimed all along, that there was a beginning:
"While the character of the general relativity observed in the universe
implies an age for the universe far beyond a few thousand years, it
also implies that there is, indeed, a definite creation date. Expansion,
coupled with deceleration, indicates a universe that is exploding
outward from a point. In fact, through the equations of general
relativity, we can trace that explosion backward to its origin, an
instant when the entire physical universe burst forth from a single
point of infinite density. That instant when the universe originated
from a point of no size at all is called the singularity. No scientific
model, no application of the laws of physics, can describe what
happens before it. Somehow, from beyond itself, the universe came to
be. It began. It began a limited time ago. It is finite, not infinite. The
implications only can be described as monumental. Atheism,
Darwinism, and virtually all the isms emanating from eighteenth-,
nineteenth-, and twentieth-century philosophies were built upon the
incorrect assumption that the universe is infinite. The singularity has
brought us face to face with the cause-or causer-beyond/behind/
before the universe and all that it contains..." (Ross H., "Cosmology
Confronts the Creator", Origins Research, Vol. 10, No. 2, Fall/Winter
1987, p8. http://www.mrccos.com/arn/orpages/or102/ross1.htm)
PM>No matter how often you repeat the word myth, creation remains one while
>science changes according to observation and knowledge. No blurred
>distinctions.
See above. Since Genesis 1 was revealed by God (I do not ncessarily mean
this is a simplistic way), it does not need to "change", because it
has been right all along, in its fundamental claim that: "In the beginning
God created the heavens and the earth." (Gn 1:1), as Robert Jastrow, founder
and director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and an agnostic
admits:
"A sound explanation may exist for the explosive birth of our
Universe; but if it does, science cannot find out what the explanation
is. The scientist's pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation.
This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the
theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: `In the
beginning God created heaven and earth...' At this moment it seems
as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the
mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the
power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the
mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as
he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of
theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (Jastrow R.,
"God and the Astronomers", 1978, pp115-116, in Moreland J.P. ed.,
"The Creation Hypothesis, 1994, pp292-293)
[...]
>SJ...my main point was that "Darwinian...macro evolution...*functions* as
>a creation-myth".
PM>So it functions as one but it isn't? It explains the scientific data,
>unlike myths, is adaptable, falsifiable, testable, unlike religious creation
>myths. So it might appear to be a myth but it isn't?
I don't have any brief for "religious creation myth" in general. But in the
case of Genesis 1, it stands apart from all other ancient creation accounts
in that it outlines in popular language an account that in the words of
leading Middle East archaeologist W.F. Albright:
"The account of Creation is unique in ancient literature. It
undoubtedly reflects an advanced monotheistic point of view, with a
sequence of creative phases so rational that modern science cannot
improve on it, given the same language and the same range of ideas in
which to state its conclusions. In fact, modern scientific cosmogonies
show a disconcerting tendency to be short-lived and it may be
seriously doubted whether science has yet caught up with the Biblical
story." (Albright W.F., in Alleman H.C. & Flack E.E., eds., "Old
Testament Commentary", 1948, p135, in Ramm B.L., "The Christian
View of Science and Scripture", 1955, pp120-121).
>SJ>To test whether "since "1943" "severe methodological criticism..."
>*has* "been brought to bear on evolutionary speculation", my question
>to you (and all the other evolutionists), is:
>
>"Please tell me, then, some of the evidence against the theory
>of Evolution."
PM>You mean how evolution could be falsified? If your question is to suggest
>that there is little evidence against the theory of evolution and that
>there is plenty of evidence in support then we agree.
No. I did not ask "how evolution could be falsified?", I asked you to
"tell me...some of the evidence against the theory of Evolution."
That you cannot even frame the question (much less answer) it, is evidence
to me that "the theory of evolution" is functioning as a creation myth for
you.
PM>But even criticism of a theory is what is all part of science. There have
>been and will be over time many doubters or disbelievers and some might
>have a valid point and the theory has to be adapted. A religious creation
>myth however does not allow for such a scientific behavior and has to be
>presumed correct even in face of contradicting evidence.
I find it most significant that you use the words of *religion* ("doubters
or disbelievers" in respect of "the theory of evolution". That is more
evidence that "the theory of evolution" is functioning as a creation myth for
you. But you are in good company - it functions as a creation myth for many
(if not most) leading evolutionists, as the following religious language used
by Francis Crick of Dawkin's "Blind Watchmaker" indicates:
"If you doubt the power of natural selection, I urge you for the sake
of your soul to read Dawkins's book. I think you will find it a
revelation..."(Crick F., "What Mad Pursuit, 1988, p29, in Johnson P.E.,
"Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy?", debate with William B.
Provine, Stanford University, April 30, 1994, Origins Research,
Vol. 16, No. 1-2, Fall/Winter 1994, p7
http://www.mrccos.com/arn/orpages/or161/161main.htm)
Regards.
Steve
PS: Sorry, but I haven't had time to answer your "Origin of life, thermodynamics
2/2" post. I will start on it tomorrow.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------