Morris and Parker, "What is creation science?"
On page 8, paragraph 2, Morris says,
Creationists prefer the reasonable faith of creationism, which is supported by all the real scientific evidence, to the credulous faith of evolutionism, which is supported by no real scientific evidence. The question remains unanswered (scientifically, at least) as to why evolutionists prefer to believe in evolution.
Morris would have to disestablish each and every documented study that shows allele frequency change over time; observed speciation; transitional fossil sequences; molecular sequencing; and quite a range of other research that demonstrates evolutionary phenomena to be both real and ongoing. Morris, of course, attempts no such thing here. Morris prefers to simply assert that he is right and others are deluded. However, the most charitable reading of this would be that Morris is grossly ignorant of the topics he comments upon, and others are better informed.
Morris and Parker, "What is creation science?"
On page 8, paragraph 3, Morris says,
The Evolution Model versus the Creation ModelAs noted in the Introduction, it is not possible to prove, in the experimental sense, either evolution or creation, since we can neither observe past history directly nor reproduce it in the laboratory. Nevertheless, we can compare and contrast the respective abilities of the evolution and creation models to explain -- and even to predict -- those scientific data which can be directly observed. Scientists who are creationists maintain the the creation model is far more effective than the evolution model in doing this.
One has almost to admire certain statements for their rhetorical
acumen, even if they represent blackest disinformation. The first
sentence of the above quote of Morris is such a statement for me.
First, science is not about proof, whether one uses
experimental or observational methods. Second, experimental methods
are not the only methods available to scientists. Third, direct
observation of past history is not necessary for testing of scientific
theories concerning such histories. Fourth, not all evolutionary
mechanism theories are historical in aspect, which means that several
such EMTs are amenable to direct observation or even
experimentation. Fifth, reproduction of phenomena in the laboratory
is not necessary to scientific research, else astronomers dealing with
theories of supernovae would be considered dire enemies of the public
welfare.
Morris and Parker, "What is creation science?"
On page 8, paragraph 3, Morris says,
As noted in the Introduction, it is not possible to prove, in the
experimental sense, either evolution or creation, since we can neither
observe past history directly nor reproduce it in the laboratory.
Nevertheless, we can compare and contrast the respective abilities of
the evolution and creation models to explain -- and even to predict --
those scientific data which can be directly observed.
Scientists who are creationists maintain the the creation model is far
more effective than the evolution model in doing this.
Comparison and contrast is a valid technique for certain types
of analyses. However, I note at this point that what Morris
proposes to compare are models. A model is no substitute
for a theory in scientific terms. Scientific theories have definite
and prescribed attributes. There are many evolutionary mechanism
theories that have these attributes. There is no scientific theory
of creation that I have encountered in over ten years of reading
SciCre literature and participating in online discussion.
Theories, in particular, propose mechanisms. Because a
mechanism is given in a theory, the outcomes of events
involving such mechanisms can be predicted. Such a prediction
is a prediction made from that theory. The prediction
logically follows from the specification of an initial state,
a stated mechanism operating upon that initial state, and
the consequences of the operation of that mechanism upon the
initial state.
A model, however, works by analogy and analogy only. There
is supposed to be a mechanism inherent within the specification
of the model. (This is something that I am skeptical of finding
in any further description of a "creation model".) The
mechanism within the model can lead to predicted outcomes
within the framework of the model, but does not
necessarily indicate that similar predictions hold outside
that framework. The usual advantages and disadvantages of
analogy apply in that case.
For an argument from a model to succeed, several things
are necessary. First, the components of the model need to
be clearly specified, with mechanisms well documented.
Second, internal consistency of the model must be verified.
The data within the framework of the model must show
conciliance of the mechanism with the report of any outcomes
of application of the mechanism. Third, the analogy between
the model and that portion of reality which it is intended
to illuminate needs to be made explicit. Fourth, the
degree of fit of the analogy needs to be evaluated.
So far, no components of a creation model have been
explicated. We have a bald assertion that the creation
model has some bearing upon reality. Will the issues
that I have identified above be addressed in the rest
of the book?
Morris, lacking a scientific theory of creation, has
to level the playing field by describing both
evolutionary process and creation as "models". Since
evolutionary mechanism theories already meet the more
stringent standards of scientific theories, this blandly
delivered pontification from Morris is certainly no
less than an essential misrepresentation.
W.R. Elsberry |
Marine Species |
Falconry |
Evolution |
ANS |
GA |
Photo
RealCom. Web page providers
extraodinaire... check 'em out. Search pages:
WebCrawler |
Excite! |
Infoseek |
Yahoo! |
Lycos
The Evolution Model versus the Creation Model