Re: Panderichthyids and trans...
Kevin Wirth (kevin.wirth@accessone.com)
Mon, 26 Jun 95 07:12:06 PDT>To: Lloyd Eby <leby@nova.umuc.edu>
>From: kevin.wirth@accessone.com (Kevin Wirth)
>Subject: Re: Panderichthyids and trans...
>
>>On Sun, 25 Jun 1995, Kevin Wirth wrote:
>>
>>(Snip)
>>
>>> I join with you in wishing your friends success in their fossil hunting.
>>>
>>> But let's be clear about one thing: they are not finding evidence for
>>> evolution. They are finding evidence, period.
>
>To which Lloyd Eby replied:
>
>>What do you mean to say here? That you have established that evolution is
>>false, and therefore fossils *cannot* be evidence for it, or that
>>evolution is unproven, thus putative evidence for it is inconclusive?
>
>The latter. I'm not saying that fossils *cannot* be evidence for
evolution. I am saying that to call all fossils *evidence* for evolution is
preposterous in the extreme. It presupposes that everything found will in
some way explain a theory which has NOT been fully established. It's an
arrogant presupposition to make, given the fact that the combined fossil
evidence still only gives us dim insight into any alleged evolutionary
theory. I'm taking issue with the notion that all fossils are to be
perceived as additional *data* for evolution. They simply are not any such
thing. They are evidence of life in the past, period. Evolution is NOT a
required framework in which to view fossils.
>
>>Fossils *may* be evidence for evolution. You and other anti-evolutionists
>>have *not*, I think, shown that evolution is false -- only that the
>>arguments and evidence for it are sketchy and inconclusive. If evolution
>>(in whatever of it forms -- atheistic or theistic, gradualist or PE) is
>>true, then fossils *do* constitute evidence for it.
>
>I don't need to show that evolution is false. Those who advocate evolution
have that role squarely on their shoulders. It is up to THEM to demonstrate
that evolution warrants the status it currently enjoys. This is standard
operating procedure in science, isn't it? Until evolution is fully and
compellingly established (i.e., when MOST of the evidence speaks unarguably
for evolution), then I think it's only fair that if the arguments for it
remain, as you say, "sketchy and inconclusive", then there is ample cause to
refrain from fully embracing it.
>
>It is a constant source of wonder to me how the use of imaginative links
between evidence can be dismissed as *not* a story. Because such a practice
can ONLY produce a story. And that's all we have, are stories, because that
is currently the best we can do. Sure, we have very intelligent people
making them up, but they are still stories just the same. Experts have been
incorrect in their stories numerous times. It's critical that we keep this
in mind as we go along our way in these discussions of *how* life evolved*.
Though we can't really say HOW life evolved, many of us work from the
premise that it did, and then try to explain the HOW through these stories.
And then, suddenly, we find ourselves so stuck in the idea that we can't let
go. We lose sight of the *fact* that we started with a premise which has
not been compellingly established.
>
>I'm taking aim at this sense of *expectancy* that all the fossil evidence
points to evolution. No way. Listen to Broad and Wade:
>
> "Expectancy leads to self-deception, and self-deception leads to the
propensity to be deceived by others..."
>
> "A dramatic demonstration of experimenter expectancy has been provided
in a series of studies by Harvard psychologist Robert Rosenthal. In one of
his experiments he gave psychology students two groups of rats to study.
The *maze-bright* group of rats, the students were told, had been specially
bred for its intelligence in running mazes. The *maze-dull* group were
genetically stupid rats. The students were told to test the maze-running
abilities of the two groups. Sure enough, they found that the maze-bright
rats did significantly better than the maze-dull rats. In fact, there was
nodifference between the maze-bright and maze-dull animals"
>
>(pp. 108 & 109 of Betrayers of the Truth, By Broad and Wade)
>
>I hope you can clearly understand my cocerns from the foregoing snip.
>
>
>
>
Kevin Wirth, President
Wirth & Associates
1420 NW Gilman Blvd. #2563
Issaquah, WA 98027-7001
(206) 391-3698 PHONE