From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Subject: Re: Rawlins debunks creationism
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.
Lines: 79

In article <1993Apr15.223844.16453@rambo.atlanta.dg.com> wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:

>    We are talking about origins, not merely science.   Science cannot
>    explain origins.  For a person to exclude anything but science from
>    the issue of origins is to say that there is no higher truth
>    than science.  This is a false premise.  By the way, I enjoy science.
>    It is truly a wonder observing God's creation.  Macroevolution is
>    a mixture of 15 percent science and 85 percent religion [guaranteed
>    within three percent error :) ]

Let us explore this interesting paragraph point by point, sentence by
sentence.


1) We are talking about origins, not merely science.

Origins of what?  Are we speaking of the origins of life, the human
species, the universe, physical law, biological diversity or what?

2) Science cannot explain origins.

This is a false statement unless it is carefully qualified.  It depends
on what origins we are talking about.

3) For a person to exclude anything but science from the issue of origins
is to say that there is no higher truth than science.

Again, this is a false statement.  To begin with, the notion of "higher
truth" is distinctly dubious.  Many people believe that there are ways
to ascertain truth that are not in the repetoire of science; they even
believe that there are ways that are more reliable and certain.  Many
believe that there are truths that cannot be expressed using the language
of science.  Let it be so.  These truths are neither "higher" or 
"lower"; they are simply true.

More to the point, restricting one's discussion of origins to science
does not reject other sources of knowledge; it simply restricts the
scope of discussion.

4) This is a false premise.

If this is intended as asserting that the previous sentence was false
then (4) is actually true.  However the context identifies it as another
false [or at least theologically unsound] statement.

5) By the way, I enjoy science.

On the evidence Mr. Rawlins lacks sufficient understanding of science
to enjoy science in any meaningful sense.  One might just as well say
that one enjoys literature written in a language that one cannot read.
However one cannot mark this sentence as false -- to follow the analogy,
perhaps he likes the pretty shapes of the letters.

6) It is truly a wonder observing God's creation.

Let us not quibble; count this one as true.

7) Macroevolution is a mixture of 15 percent science and 85 percent
religion [guaranteed within three percent error :) ]

Still another false statement.  However one can make it come out true
with the following contextual modification:

"Macroevolution, as misunderstood by Rawline, is a mixture of 15 percent
of what Rawlins erroneously thinks of as science, and 85 percent of
what Rawlins erroneously thinks of as religion."

-----

It is distinctly noticeable that Mr. Rawlins fails miserably to touch
on truth except when he reports personally on what he feels.  [I do
him the justice of assuming that he is not misinforming us as to his
personal reactions.]  One can account for this by the hypothesis that
he has an idiosyncratic and personal concept of truth.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
