The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov

Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov

[gomaaa]

I had resolved myself to take a crack at your suggestion, when I realized that it was a lot harder than it seems at first! We spend so much time attacking and defending evolution that I've never really gotten a clear picture of what creationism and ID is really about at its core. I'm very interested to see what the reaction to this is going to be. Here's ID as I see it:

The world is a VERY complex and beautiful place.
The variety of life, and the marvelous ways it manifests itself are so truly astounding that I find it impossible to just suppose that it all came to exactly this state by chance. The world is undeniably old and evolution is clearly the mechanism by which life has developed. Natural selection can clearly produce small shifts in how a species can change its nature. However, the incredible complexity I see can only be explained by the undetectable (at this point) hand of an intelligent creator, who subtly nudges the evolutional process at each step. Though the influence is too small to see on our time scales and obviously does not violate the rules of evolution that it has itself established, it can over time produce the incredible complexity and variety which we see.

[balrog666]

The "Evolution = Atheism + Communism" crowd is a good example of this phenomenon.

Yeah, aren't they all so funny?

[gomaaa]

As a side note, there is actually a new field of experimental astrophysics being explored at the University of Rochester. It helps to have the world's most powerful laser in your backyard! The laser is used primarily for fusion experiments, but is capable of recreating conditions similar to those encountered in space.

Hopefully this will give them the opportunity to test some of their theories under more controlled circumstances, but the possibility that they will overturn years of theory based on observation as opposed to direct experimentation is vanishingly small. The astrophysicists know their stuff.

Experimentation is just detailed observation of the real world where you get to set the initial conditions yourself. It aids observation, but is not critical. Does the theory match the real world? That's the question. Provided the research is careful and detailed and explores many possible conditions, the pricise means by which it is answered are not critical to judging whether something is good science or not.

[Rachumlakenschlaff]

gomaa,

Thank you for your well-considered and civil response. I believe you are the first evolutionist who has done so (at least to my posts).

Eventually, though, quarks were instrumental in allowing physicists to produce the "Standard Model" which is one of the most complete and succesful THEORIES in the history of science. Nowadays quarks are widely accepted and proven to exist.

May I respectfully point out that the flaw in your argument from particle physics is that the study of particle physics is full of experimentation. The "tons of sub-atomic particles" to which you refer were discovered by smashing things together inside of particle acceslerators. (Who was it that made the analogy that it was like trying to discover how Swiss watches work by smashing them together and analyzing the broken pieces? :-)

EXPERIMENTATION IS REALLY JUST DETAILED OBSERVATION OF THE REAL WORLD. If you can control things, then great. If not, that doesn't mean you can't do good science, it just makes your job harder.

I'm not convinced. I look forward to your respone to 1574.

[gomaaa]

"My version of science (the one that follows the scientific method, by the way), requires me to perform experiments on falling balls under many different circumstances, with many different sized balls of many different type of materials, and controlling as many variables as possible. By doing so, I discover that your model is incorrect and am able to develop a theory that is based upon my controlled experimentation. Furthermore, it turns out to be predictive of new experiments that I perform with more variables controlled. In doing so, I discover something called "air" and learn that I must exclude it from my experiments in order to properly describe the law of gravity. I then go on to study this substance called "air", develop the equations that describe its drag on objects, the relationship between velocity and pressure, and eventually invent the airplane (but I digress, uh... progress :-) "

This is actually a pretty darned good explanation of how scientific progress is made, including biology and studies of evolution. No one here is disputing you on this. You say, however, that this system does not apply to evolution, and it most assuredly does!

[Rachumlakenschlaff]

I'm less confused than you imagine. Experiments don't "prove" theories. They test theories. If a theory flunks an experiment, it's falsified. The key to being a scientific theory is the possibility of falsification. This is what separates science from, say, Genesis.

I never said that experiments prove theories. But, by your own definition - that falsification is dependendent on experimentation - evolution is not science, since evolution is not subject to experimentation and, therefore, cannot be falsified.

No problem. Done.

Thank you.

[gomaaa]

I'm betting you'd like to hear a bit more on this post than what I just wrote. Especially a response to this:

"Evolutionists cannot control the conditions of the past and they cannot cause apes to turn into people.By the same token, creationsists cannot control the conditions of the past and they cannot create people ex nihilo. Conclusion: neither evolution nor creation are science as they are commonly practiced. (I'll bet your surprised to hear my say that.)"

Particle physicists don't just look at what comes out of particle accelerators. (I liked your Swiss watch analogy, by the way. I've also heard a different version involving stock car crashes.) Especially before high-energy accelerators became available, a lot of information on particle physics came from cosmic rays. The same types of particles are produced in collisions from these high-velocity particles from the sun as are in accelerators. They would go and observe these completely natural collisions, and learn about physics that way. The muon was discovered this way. How is this different from astronomy? It is careful observation of real-world processes, that leads to progressively better theories about how they work. Geology functions in much the same way, except we are looking at naturally occuring rocks instead of naturally occuring particles or light from distant stars.

[balrog666]

But, by your own definition - that falsification is dependendent on experimentation - evolution is not science, since evolution is not subject to experimentation and, therefore, cannot be falsified.

Congratulations on missing the obvious one more time.

Theory is dependent on falsification. Not experimentation. And there are many possible falsifications for the Theory of Evolution. So far, nobody's found one.

Thanks for playing stump the ignorant Creationist. Next Creationist, please.

[PatrickHenry]

I never said that experiments prove theories. But, by your own definition - that falsification is dependendent on experimentation - evolution is not science, since evolution is not subject to experimentation and, therefore, cannot be falsified.

Balrog has already addressed this, but there's more to be said. First, you most definitely did say (or certainly imply) that experiments prove theories. In 1574, you said that about predictions, which is what experiments actually are. But experiments are not the only way in which a theory can be falsified. Evolution could very easily be falsified if fossils turned up that couldn't possibly fit into the pattern of evolution. Every new fossil is thus a test of the theory of evolution. Evolution predicts that all of life, past and present, fits into the framework of the theory. There's thus a lot of room for falsification. Not so with creationism, which can't be falsified and which (as you agree) isn't science.

[js1138]

The notion that the creator nuges things "at every step" was quite common in ancient Greek thought. It is, of course, a central theme of science to challenge this idea wherever it pops up. Neither I nor science in general have any evidence to deny that the initial conditions of creation may have been rigged.

[TaxRelief]

A basic library of books for participating in the Evolution vs. Creation debate might include the following volumes. To gain a good basic understanding of the universe and the various theories of the creation of the Universe, try:

Measuring the Universe by Kitty Ferguson and
A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking

To understand the mathematical principles behind eternity and the possibilities of the existence of a single life span, try:

The Theory of Numbers by Niven and Zuckerman (a calculus background is helpful, necessary for the entire debate, perhaps.)

To understand evolution at the molecular level (after all if the theories don't hold at the molecular level, they haven't got a firm foundation at the life level), try:

Darwin's Black Box, The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, by Michael J. Behe.

On the topic of intelligent design, try: Intelligent Design, by William A. Dembski
and The Crucible of Creation, by Simon Conway Morris, an in depth look at the Burgess Shale, the "unfolding ecological theatre", animal architecture and the origin of body plans.

Of course it is always worth going back and rereading The Origin of Species, by the man himself, Darwin.

[js1138]

I see some new faces have joined in on the side of ID --Behe and Dembski. Good to see some fresh faces among the hundreds of scientists abandoning evolution every day.

[PatrickHenry]

Behe and Dembski

Verily, it's a stampede. Those two are abandoning evolution in droves.

[balrog666]

I see some new faces have joined in on the side of ID --Behe and Dembski. Good to see some fresh faces among the hundreds of scientists abandoning evolution every day.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA!

We poor bumpkins couldn't possibly have heard of them before today!

[js1138]

Without being snide, the original request was for a single source that presented a comprehensive presentation of the theory of evolution. I'm sure a lot of creationists would be offended if I offered Ted Turner as an authority on the Bible.

Darwin is good if you understand that he stands in biology about where Maxwell does in physics.

[PatrickHenry]

There's also an unappreciated genius named Duane Gish. Brilliant fellow. Runs a splendid website, chock full of great information. I'll bet you never heard of him either.

[TaxRelief]

Without being snide, your request for a single source would necessarily require some basic background knowledge. For those joining the topic for the first time or without a sufficient scientific background, these tomes will provide the core building blocks. Because so many of the strict evolutionists, Gould for instance, have been discredited, it is difficult to provide a comprehensive, intelligent-design-free suggestion of a good book.

It is also disappointing to see the entire list dismissed out of hand because of the inclusion of Darwin. It is important to study the history of the discovery of scientific theories to fully understand the later branches that any particulary theory takes.

[VadeRetro]

To understand evolution at the molecular level (after all if the theories don't hold at the molecular level, they haven't got a firm foundation at the life level), try:

Darwin's Black Box, The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, by Michael J. Behe.

Behe is not a source on molecular evolution. Behe is an ID proponent who among his heavily criticized misstatements argues that there is as yet no discipline of molecular evolution at all. Behe is very partisan and often very wrong.

[Condorman]

I never said that experiments prove theories.

Correct. You said that was how evolutionists view science.

Because your model adequately explains the motion of the 5 observed balls and, because you have 5 new observations of 5 other balls that fell from other heights whose motions also fit your model, you claim that your model (what you call a theory) is proved.
1574 posted on 03/10/2003 5:03 PM EST by Rachumlakenschlaff

[TaxRelief]

True, Behe is partisan. Can you suggest an infallible text on evolution? I, am frankly disappointed with the leading voices on both sides of the argument.