>From: Susan Brassfield <Susan-Brassfield@ou.edu>
>> BTW I was kind of stumped by Johnson's question for a very long time until
>> I finally realized that no scientist, or anybody who thinks like a
>> scientist would *ever* be convinced by a single bit of evidence. It's
>> thousands of bits of evidence taken together that are convincing. So the
>> peppered moth or "The Beak of the Finch" are worthless without all the
>rest
>> of the other evidence from biology, paleontology, geology, physics and
>> chemistry backing it all up.
Allen Roy:
>The same goes for Creationary scientists and philosophical thinkers. But
>the problem is not the evidence, but the philosophy within which the
>evidence is interpreted. We have the Evolutionary philosophy and the
>Creationary philosophy, both of which are religious in that they are based
>on axioms which must be accepted by/on faith.
>
>Evolutionism has the following axioms:
>A. Naturalism: (Materialism) the concept that matter is eternal, there is
>nothing else.
from what I read of the Big Bang, this isn't true
>B. Actualism:(Uniformitarianism with the uniform part dropped) the present
>is the key to the past.
yes, things wern't different "back then." If they were, there needs to be
some kind of evidence to that effect.
>C. All life forms evolved from nothing over long ages.
that's abiogenesis, not evolution, and abiogenesis doesn't propose that all
life forms evolved "from nothing." That ex nihilo stuff is creationist. The
first life is thought to have self-assembled from materials at hand and
then evolved into the various forms we see today.
you are 0 for 3 on the "axioms" of evolution
>The corresponding Creationary Catastrophist's axioms are:
>A. Creationism: matter was created and is not eternal.
>B. Catastrophism: a catastrophe is responsible for most of the sedimentary
>geologic record.
if this were true, there would need to be some kind of trace in the
geologic record supporting it. There isn't.
>C. All life forms (with adaptive capabilities) were created within a short
>time frame.
again. There is no *evidence* that this is the case.
>None of these axioms are scientifically based. Rather, science is and can
>only be done and interpreted within these axiom sets. The Evolutionary
>axioms are based on mankind's experience and suppositions: i.e. they are
>humanistic. The Creationary axioms are based on the experiential knowledge
>that the God of the Bible is real and truthful.
In other words, all your arguments are based on Biblical literalism, not
actual observation of the actual world.
<snip sermon>
>Creationists reject all evidence which is interpreted within the
>Evolutionary paradigm as superfluous.
as near as I can tell any evidence that does not support the predetermined
conclusion of "some god did it" is considered superfluous and dismissed out
of hand.
>The controversy between Evolutionism and Creationism is not between
>evidences but between interpretation of evidences according to one paradigm
>or the other. The real crux of the matter are the axioms first assumed by
>both sides. That is where the discussion should really be. And that, of
>course, is by nature religious.
well, you'd *rather* it wasn't all based on the evidence, since there isn't
any evidence for creationism. It would certainly be more convienent for you
if it were all just a philosophical or religious argument.
Susan
----------
For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
this one.
--Albert Camus
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 21 2000 - 17:49:40 EST