On Tue, 23 May 1995 08:47:26 -0500 you wrote:
>Steve quoted Glenn:
>While technically you may be correct that you do not need to provide an
>alternative explanation, to omit an alternative means that you have lost the
>battle for the hearts and mind of your audience. It is human nature for
>people to hold onto any explaination even if it has problems rather than jump
>to no explanation at all.
>
>Furthermore, science works with models. Models which explain observed
>phenomena and make testable predictions are useful. More successful
>predictions increase confidence in the model. Science without models is
>speculation.
>
>
>Steve responded to Glenn
>Agreed in the long run. But the first task IMHO is to examine
>Darwinism and see if its assertions are valid. Macbeth says:
>"Courtroom experience during my career at the bar taught me to attach
>great weight to something that may seem trivial to persons not
>skilled in argumentation-the burden of proof. The proponents of a
>theory, in science or elsewhere, are obligated to support every link
>in the chain of reasoning, whereas a critic or skeptic may peck at
>any aspect of the theory, testing it for flaws. He is not obligated
>to set up any theory of his own or to offer any alternative
>explanations. He can be purely negative if he so desires. William
>Jennings Bryan forgot this in Tennessee, and was jockeyed into trying
>to defend fundamentalism, although this was not necessary to the
>matter in hand. The results were disastrous. They would have been
>equally disastrous for CIarence Darrow if he had tried to discharge
>the burden of proof for the other side. The winner in these matters
>is the skeptic who has no case to prove."
>(Macbeth N., "Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason", 1978 (reprint),
>Garnstone Press, London, p5)
BH>It seems to me that this analogy is to some extent flawed. Even in
>the courtroom, I think it applies better to the defense than to the
>prosecution. The prosecution must build a case and all the defense has to
>do is point out the flaws in the case. If he does so sucessfully the
>prosecution's case is destroyed. The prosecution probably has to work more
>like the scientist -- painstakingly building a case that shows that the
>defendant did commit the act he's accused of. If the defense can show that
>a key link in the prsecution's chain of evidence and reasoning is flawed,
>the prosecution's case is destroyed and the prosecution loses. A good
>defense attorney will try to destroy his opponent's case -- that's what he
>was hired to do. Whether the opponent really has a case is secondary. He
>will stand or fall on whether he can convince a jury that he has a case.
>Rhetoric and drama are legitimate tools in such a contest.
Of course no analogy is perfect. Macbeth's point is simply that it is
legitimate to critique a scientific theory without necessarily having
to propose an alternative.
>In science there is a legitimate role for the "defense attorney" function.
>There are anomalies and poorly understood phenomena, and it's always seemed
>to me that those are good areas to investigate, because if a new
>investigation can improve or understanding, everyone benefits -- even if an
>existing paradigm is badly damaged or destroyed. But if you want to do
>this and have scientists listen to you, come as a scientist, not a hired
>gun who wants to destroy something and walk off. Contribute useful
>knowledge and you will be listened to.
No doubt this applies in "normal" science. But we are talking about
"origin" science. Scientists who are wedded to a materialist
world-view will probably never listen to creationist-alternatives.
They deny apriori that God exists and therefore creation is possible.
If scientists deny that "The heavens declare the glory of God" (Ps
19:1), then no amount of evidence will convince them of creation.
The other point that we often forget in our discussions of evidence
for or against creation is the influence of sin and Satan. I know
this does not change the evidence, but it does affect the attitude of
unbelievers in accepting the evidence.
>I mentioned above that you can
>destroy a legal case by showing that a key element in the chain of evidence
>and reasoning is flawed, and I think that's the other problem with
>crationist attacks on evolution. They would have to convince the
>specialists in the field they are attacking that they have truly
>demonstrated that key evidence is flawed. I don't believe they have
>accomplished that.
See above. IMHO the Creation-Science and anti-Darwinian
non-creationists (eg. Hitching, Taylor, Denton, Milton, etc) have
produced very cogent arguments against Darwinism, but they are just
ignored or ridiculed. There is no serious consideration of the
problems they raise. The bottom line seems to be that evolution is a
"fact" no matter what the evidence might seem to say. Dawkins
actually comes close to saying this:
"The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only
theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the
existence of organized complexity. Even if the evidence did not
favour it, it would still be the best theory available!" (Dawkins R.,
"The Blind Watchmaker", 1991, Penguin, pp317)
>Glenn continues
>
>Besides, to me, it is not intellectually honest to
>always avoid coming up with a workable theory rather than merely critiquing
>what others have created. We should be more than mere debunkers of evolution
>or nihilists!
>
>Steve replies
>
>Give me a break Glenn! Are you seriously advancing the proposition
>that the average layman has either to accept Darwinism or come up
>with their own alternative?
>
>The average layman who has not determined to make himself a player in the
>creation/evolution controversy has no such obligation. _But_ if you inject
>yourself into the controversy and take a position, and Bible-believing
>Christians are following you, looking to you for leadership and teaching,
>_then_ you have a sacred obligation not to lead them astray. James 3:1.
I totally agree! But our "sacred obligation not to lead them astray"
is in the context of *salvation*, not whether they are up-to-date with
the latest scientific theory. Even if Creation-Science is wrong
regarding scientific matters (eg. 24-hour creation and a global
Flood, etc), as I believe they are, at least they are trying to
preserve the faith of Christ's "little ones" (Mt 18:6). If Creation-
Science or Progressive Creationists are wrong regarding evolution but
are right regarding God, then it is the latter on which they will be
judged. The former, after all, is just part of "this world in its
present form" which "is passing away" (1Cor 7:31).
Stephen