Quit picking at the slightest possible points Lloyd. What a stickler you are!
Sure, it's a little *off* base, but hey, evolutionary stories are created by
PEOPLE, and it so happens that the PEOPLE who create the stories linking the
evidence are often so intolerant of any questions, any criticism, or any
doubt about their claims that
they will often participate in abominable practices. I may be off the point a
bit, Lloyd, but I don't think I've strayed so far as to warrant your
admonishment
here. After all, should we say that the slaughter of millions of innocent
civilians
during world war II has little to do with the relationship between Hitler
and Mussolini? Well then, should we likewise teach our children that the
Invasion of Iraq into Kuwait was about oil, and that a discussion of Desert
Storm should be avoided because it isn't *germain*? I think not.
Slapping my knuckles for my mention of the many unreported incidents of
*gross malfeasance* (at least we agree on that...) is just as ridiculous.
There are some casualties in this issue, and they are NOT trivial. Bottom
line: exposing the fallout from the irresponsible management and promotion
of an idea is fair game in this discussion. So, I do not accept your
correction.
>> What I said was that the
>> DATA or the EVIDENCE is linked with speculative and imaginative STORIES.
>> These are fantasies, and some of the best men in paleontology and other
>> fields of science related to this issue readily admit it!
>
>*All* scientific theories, without exception, are what you call
>"speculative and imaginative STORIES" because all theories go beyond the
>evidence for them.
We agree here. But hold on -- because right at this point I stop and add the
following: *and it's just too darn bad that too many brilliant people continue
to fail at making the distinction between the facts and the fantasy*. The
pieces of the theory which comprise the *story* are held by many to be just as
significant as the *evidence*. They are treated the same. Why? Because they
start with the assumption that evolution *must have* happened in some manner,
even if we don't know exactly how.
Now I call that putting the cart before the horse. I call that leading without
cause. I call that skullduggery -- and the greater abuse is that not only
is this practice tolerated, but it is openly PROMOTED as *scientific*! No
it isn't! If
you can't tell the difference between that part of the story which is fact
and that
part which is speculation -- we have a problem. This IS a problem! Just
this week
I picked up the Seattle Post Intelligencer, and there on the front page was this
illustrated timeline for the evolution of the whale. The illustration
depicts at saome point Ambulocetus as a *transitional animal* in whale
evolution. Next in the sequence is a drawing of an animal which is pure
fantasy, the stop-gap transitional critter that *must have been* there on
the way to becoming Rodhocetus. Was there any
acknowledgement that this evolving version of Ambulocetus was pure fantasy?
Heck no!
I call that VERY irresponsible, because it communicates (quite effectively
to the untrained reader...) that THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED in the course of
whale evolution. It doesn't communicate THIS IS WHAT *MIGHT HAVE* HAPPENED.
This rubbish communciates to people THIS IS WHAT WE KNOW, not, THIS IS WHAT
WE *THINK* WE KNOW. This is how the notion of evolution is perpetuated.
Lloyd continued...
>The link between evidence and theory is always an open
>one in that the evidence or data *never* yields the theory as a deductive
>consequence, *except in those very few cases where we have a fully
>formalized system*, and no *natural* science (a science that purports to
>tell us something about the natural-phenomenal world, as opposed to a
>mathematical or logical system, which is a self-contained syntactic
>system, having a semantic referent or import only upon interpretation) is
>a fully formalized system.
>
>You may indeed be right in claiming that the story (theory) of evolution
>has too many gaps, leaps, and speculations. But gaps, leaps, and
>speculations *in themselves* are not evidence of non-scientificness or
>speciousness because *all* theories and stories have them. Moreover they
>have them not because somebody has failed to fill in the gaps, but
>because such gaps are *necessarily* part of any non-trivial theory.
I never said theorization or the use of imagination was non-scientific. What I
SAID was that we have a problem with the misuse and abuse of science. People
who hold to evolution typically don't think of it as a *possibility*, they
usually think of it as having occurred, period. It's not a *story* to most
of them.
It's as well established as *gravity* or your garden variety summer squash.
>> You
>> have attempted, for whatever reason, to make my argument into something it
>> never was.
>
>
>Perhaps I've read too much into your argument. But, as I've thought over
>it, I've concluded that you are indeed accepting or working with a
>positivist understanding of science, and that is what I am protesting.
>
>
>> >The bottom line here is that as long as we must rely on speculation, there
>> is no compelling reason which REQUIRES us to adhere to evolution. Failing
>> to make a distinction between evidence and the model of evolution is a
>> serious error, but people do it all the time.
>
>
>Yes and no. *All* scientific theories (or stories) do rely on
>speculation, and thus all are always subject to revision and even
>overthrow. The evidence (which is, in principle, always finite) never
>REQUIRES any theoretical conclusion (in the sense of demanding
>that conclusion as a logical requirement) because theories usually
>contain universal assertions, or surrogates for them.
Yes, but you leave out a very important aspect in all this, and that is,
that the process of evolutionary criticism and revision rests almost
exclusively within the group which has already accepted the notion. That's
a lot like asking basball players to consider whether baseball is America's
greatest sport. Chances are very good that you will arrive at an
overwhelming consensus! Sorry, but the prejudiced usually see and find what
they expect to see and find.
I don't know what kind of Pollyanna world you live in Lloyd, but in the case
of evolution, the FACT of the matter is, the REALITY in life is, if you are
a practicing scientist or educator in many fields today, and you fail to
adopt an evolutionary view, you stand an 80% or better chance of being harassed
at the least or having your position, esteem, and status literally yanked
out from
under you. I call that coercion, and not even close to the tidy picture you
attempt
to portray here. I'm trying to talk in terms of WHAT IS; you seem to be
talking
about WHAT SHOULD BE.
If the PROCESS of revision (which includes dissent) is short-circuited,
eschewed, and marginalized with respect to feedback from those who are NOT
of an evolutionary persuasion -- if there is no POSSIBILITY of overthrow
from dissenters -- then your comments ring hollow.
I agree with you
>that, as you say, the "distinction between evidence and the model of
>evolution" needs to be kept. But that distinction is not as hard or
>straight or clear or uncontroversial as you seem to suggest that it is. I
>also agree with you that the evidence does not compel or require us to
>adhere to evolution. But evidence *for* evolution is indeed evidence *for *
>evolution (and that statement is not just a simple tautology). Evidence
>is always open-ended in that it can always be interpreted in more than one
>way.
Ok Lloyd. But let's just agree, can we?, that the part of the evidence
which is *for* evolution is the speculation part.
Kevin
Kevin Wirth, President
Wirth & Associates
1420 NW Gilman Blvd. #2563
Issaquah, WA 98027-7001
(206) 391-3698 PHONE