Replies

Interesting that this was written in 1984

Actually, it was written in 1981, but published in 1984. And the creationists haven't changed a word of their "science." They just get more strident.

Actually, it was written in 1981, but published in 1984. And the creationists haven't changed a word of their "science." They just get more strident.

Actually, Aximov also wrote "In the Beginning", his account in scientific terms about how the Book of Genesis may be made compatible with early man's observations. Quite interesting, however my rabbi did not like it.

Actually, it was written in 1981, but published in 1984. And the creationists haven't changed a word of their "science." They just get more strident.

I'm surprised I haven't seen this composition before, since I've always been such an Asimov fan. I'm even more surprised to find that I disagree with some of his analysis, especially regarding the second law of thermodynamics as it applies to the question of evolution.

However, rather than argue all the points of creationism vs. evolution, I would just like to point out an intersting aspect of this whole discussion.

Those who believe in Creationism do so as an article of faith. It cannot be proven, anymore than the existence of God can be proven. This is well known, and one of the main reasons that believers of Evolution scoff at Creationists. However, how many people out there, who unquestioningly accept Evolution as the answer to our existence, really understand the nature of the theory? Even Darwin's theory is not generally taught in any great depth in high school or college (undergraduate level), and the modern theory of evolution is different from Darwin's original theories by leaps and bounds. Therefore, most fervent supporters of evolution, lacking any real understanding of what current evolutionary theory is, are accepting the theory on a basis that resembles faith rather than a true understanding of science. Why, then, are they so disdainful of those who accept creationism based on faith?

I will say that I think the 'scientific' approach to Creationism is more of an attempt to bypass the current extremely anti-religious interpretations of the Constitution than it is real science, since the best that Creationist science could hope to achieve is to disprove evolution.

And the creationists haven't changed a word of their "science."

As opposed to evolutionists, who rebuild our theories from scratch every decade or so.

When we first began to document the embryonic development of various species, we observed that they follow the same basic patterns that evolution took. Obviously, developing embryos went through their respective evolutionary histories as they matured. The Ontogenic Law was required learning for all budding biologists: Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny. (i.e. Embryonic development reflects the evolutionary pathways of the respective species) Of course, over the years the evidence disproved the Law, and it soon fell out of favour. Quoting the Ontogenic Law is great fun at cocktail parties ... a great way to impress the ladies.

We used to predict that we would be able to observe the evolution of new species, based on a derived rate of evolution (using the number of species observed at current state and over time from the fossil record). When we failed to find such evidence, we revised our theories to introduce periods of extremely rapid evolution followed by long periods of evolutionary inactivity. The fossil record seems to support this view, but realistically the record is so sketchy that this could easily be an artifact of missing fossil evidence during the periods of evolutionary inactivity.

With the advent of gene mapping, we predicted we could demostrate the phylogenic pathways by tracing genes and tracking them through the phylogenic tree. This was excellent proof of evolutionary development, until we discovered that humans, rutebagas, and starfish share genes. So we came up with the concept of jumping genes that could transverse species.

And the creation of the universe has long been held to be a gradual process starting at various points in space. Eventually, this theory fell out of favour, and the Big Bang theory became in vogue. Big Bang advocates had been ridiculed for over a hundred years. Suddenly, physicists found themselves doing a 180 and joining the theologins in their Big Bang camp.

Then there was the paper introduced in the late 70's where a researcher used the largest published rate of evolution, the largest published rates of mutations, the longest published estimates of the ages of the universe and of the earth, and the smallest estimates of the number of species present on the earth at current state and at differing times in geological history. Based on those numbers, the odds of chance creating evolution were so inifinitesimal that it was ludicrous to consider. (I've not followed this particular argument since the 80's. I would be interested in hearing what has happened in this arena in the ensuing 20 years.)

Now anyone familiar with the scientific process isn't surprised by this evolution of the evolutionary theory. But the disconcerting aspect is that so often, the process leads the scientific community into the camp of the theologians who have scarecely moved in a couple of millenia.