Re: Creationism is religion not science
- From: Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaughan@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 03 Jun 2006 00:16:25 +0100
Ken Down wrote:
In message <87verkldou.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaughan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(Incidentally, it's very easy to make a theory "simple":
all you have to do is to not fill in any of the details.
You can make atheistic theories "simple" like that too.
I think creationists are only entitled to say that their
theories are simpler than non-creationist theories when
they've fleshed them out with a corresponding degree of
specificity and predictive power. Of course it's always
open to the creationist to say "oh no, *that* was never
the sort of theory I had in mind", but then it's not fair
crowing about the greater simplicity of the theory.)
(I've put this paragraph first, even though it came last, as it fits the
order of my reply better.)
You're jumping on poor Tweetie for something she didn't say: she said that
it was simpler *to believe* in a six-day Creation, not that the six-day
Creation was a simpler process.
I think you may have misunderstood me; I never said anything
about "a simpler process"; I was talking about the simplicity
of the *theory*. If you actually meant to distinguish, not
between a simpler belief and a simpler process, but between
a simpler belief and a simpler theory, then you may have a
point; but, even assuming that such a distinction is possible
(and I'm not quite sure what it would mean), as TP said
"simpler to say" rather than "simpler to believe" I still
consider my interpretation reasonable.
Incidentally, I'd been assuming that TP was male;
I see your assumption is the reverse. TP, if you're
reading this, would you like to enlighten us on that
point too? Or, alternatively, to suggest that we stop
speculating on the matter? :-)
Of course he can. Including creating a universe with elaborate
appearances of age, so as to deceive if possible even the
elect. And, for that matter, including creating a universe
by means that aren't the simplest ones you can imagine.
I'm cautious about this argument. I agree that there are many apperances of
great age in the universe; some may well be because the universe (as opposed
to life on this earth) is indeed of great age. Others may well be a matter
of interpretation.
I've just thought: Nick poured scorn on my suggestion that earth movements
could have been faster in the past on the basis that faster movements would
have required more energy and produced more heat than we can account for.
The answer is simple: dark energy and dark cooling. No one's seen it, no one
can measure it, no theory can account for it. Sounds to me like the perfect
scientific hypothesis.
*yawn*
--
Gareth McCaughan
..sig under construc
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Creationism is religion not science
- From: Kendall K. Down
- Re: Creationism is religion not science
- References:
- Re: Creationism is religion not science
- From: Tweetie Pooh
- Re: Creationism is religion not science
- From: Gareth McCaughan
- Re: Creationism is religion not science
- From: Kendall K. Down
- Re: Creationism is religion not science
- Prev by Date: Re: Turning the other cheek
- Next by Date: Re: Turning the other cheek
- Previous by thread: Re: Creationism is religion not science
- Next by thread: Re: Creationism is religion not science
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|