By: Elliott Finesse Re: Questions for Creationist Creationists: Please explain some of the

By: Elliott Finesse
Re: Questions for Creationist

Creationists: Please explain some of the concepts behind Creationism.

Excerpts from FABNAQ - Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions
by Tom Scharle (scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu)

           Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions

Is there any reason to believe in your theory rather than some other
version of creationism?

Why are many Christians evolutionists?

Some people say that scientific creationism does a disservice to
Christianity by holding Christianity up to ridicule.  How would you
answer that charge?

Is there any observation which supports any feature of your theory?
(An adequate answer to this question will *not* be something which is a
problem for evolution, but is rather evidence *for* your theory.
Remember that it is logically possible for both evolution and your
theory to be false.  Something which appears to support Lamarkian
evolution rather than Darwinian, or punctuated equilibrium rather than
gradualism is not enough.  Also, the observation must be something which
can be checked by an independent observer.)

Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory?

Is there any comprehensive and consistent statement of your theory?
(The suggestion that major points are still under investigation will
only be accepted for theories that are relatively recent.  Any
exposition which cannot be distinguished from solipsism or nihilism
will not be accepted.)

Is there any statement of the scientific (or other) rules of
evidence which you accept?  (If your answer is that some document is
your guide, explain the rules for interpreting the document, and your
rules for determining which document is your guide.)

Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating
methods  -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals,
supernovas  -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and
archeology?  (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of
uniformity of radioactive decay.  The question is why all these
different methods give the *same* answers.)

Explain the distribution of plant and animal fossils.  For example,
the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants.

Is there any feature of your theory which is subject to scientific
test? This is often stated: is creationism scientific in the sense that
it *could* be falsified?  (After Karl Popper's criterion.)  Another way
of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were
seen, would change your theory?

Is there any observation which *has* changed your theory?

Is your theory open to change, and if so, what criteria are there
for accepting change?

Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the
world?  How is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby
islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia, and few placental
mammals are native to Australia?  Why are tomatoes and potatoes native
to the Americas only?  (This is not a question merely of how they could
have arrived there, it is also of why *only* there.)

---
TIMM 1.0.2 - The Ideal Mac Mailreader.
 * Origin: Hayward, CA//510-786-6560//28800 (1:215/130)