The material below is quoted from (the notoroious) Dr. Lenny Flank's
website. His debate style tends to resemble a man driving railroad
spikes--when Bertvan said some evolutionist called her an "ignorant
creationist pig" I immediately thought of him. Nevertheless, his website is
well-researched, beautifully written and well worth reading. This is part
of an essay called *Evolution: "Just a Theory"*. I very much wonder if
Phillip Johnson has thought of the ideas in the second paragraph.
--------
As a complement to labelling evolution as "just a theory", the creationists
also like to refer to their
own particular outlook as a "model". Examination will quickly show that
this is simply not
true--creationism is not a scientific model in any sense of the word.
Scientific hypotheses, theories
and models are all based upon several fundamental criteria. First, they
must explain the world as it is
observed, using naturalistic mechanisms which can be tested and verified by
independent
observation and experimentation. Although the existence of God is not
necessarily denied by science,
supernatural explanations which are based upon the unseen actions of God
are excluded from
science as a matter of necessity. As biologist J.B.S. Haldane pointed out,
science is dependent upon the
assumption that the world is real and operates according to regular and
predictable laws, which are
not changed from moment to moment at the whim of supernatural forces: "My
practice as a scientist
is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no
god, angel or devil is going to
interfere with its course." (cited in Montagu, 1984, p. 241) Geologist and
theologian Dr James Skehan
also notes, "I undertake my scientific research with the confident
assumption that the earth follows
the laws of nature which God established at creation . . . . My studies are
performed with the
confidence that God will not capriciously confound scientific results by
'slipping in' a miracle!"
(Strahler, 1987, pp. 40-41)
In a manner similar to that of science, the actions of supernatural
entities are also excluded from the
legal arena--no person is permitted to argue in a US court that they are
not responsible for a crime
because Satan was in control of them, or that such and such a crime
happened because it was the will
of God. Neither system denies the existence of God, but both exclude God as
an explanatory
mechanism.
The creationist idea that God divinely created the universe may or may not
be true, but, by
postulating a supernatural event which occurs outside of the natural laws
of the universe, such an
idea places itself firmly outside the realm of science. There is simply no
experiment which can verify
any of its assertions and no predictions of future data that can be drawn
from this hypothesis, and
those who hold such conclusions can do so only on the basis of faith. This
is fine for a religious outlook
or an ideology, but it has nothing at all in common with science.
--------
Susan
----------
The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only
morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
--Albert Einstein
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 04 2000 - 13:32:54 EDT