On Tue, 19 Dec 1995 12:16:10 -0700 (MST) you wrote:
[...]
TM>Yes, I have to agree that Ross tends to be more honest. But we
should
>also point out that the format of _Facts and Faith_ isn't really a place
>for serious scientific discussion anyway. If they point out their
>"errors" and if they point out when the science disagrees with them,
>great. If they don't, just be aware it's a format used to argue a
>particular position, rather than the science itself.
Agreed. Ross' F&F is really an apologetic. It is proposing that the
Bible is a substantially reliable special revelation from God, and
marshalls facts to support that proposal, within a PC framework. It
is not concerned if some of its facts turn out not to be 100% correct,
because they don't necessarily falsify the core arguments. In fact
that appears to be the way that modern science functions, according to
influential philosopher of science, Imre Lakatos:
"Lakatos proposed that science proceeds by adopting a central research
program, the central core of which is dogmatically held and protected
by a belt of hypotheses that can be adjusted to improve the program's
fit with the empirical data...A program is unsuccessful
(`degenerating') when the difficulties multiply to the extent that the
cost of generating unproductive auxiliary hypotheses exceeds the value
of protecting the central core." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the
Balance", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1995, p229-230)
Retractions are not always published because: a) it would give
ammunition to the "enemy" (which was Jim's point about evolutionists
doing likewise); b) the counter arguments and refutations are not seen
as such because of the "priority of the paradigm" (see Denton, p344);
and c) space is a priority and there are better things to write about
than retractions - they can wait until next month! :-)
Personally, I agree with Glenn that Christian organisations should set
a higher standard and admit mistakes. Indeed some do, even YEC's. I
subscribe to the Australian Creation-Science Foundation's journal and
they have admitted a number of mistakes publically.
JB>And when was the last time you saw a "retraction" from the
>evolutionists? Every single problem becomes fodder for a new
>variation on Naturalism. The famous gaps in the fossil record, for
>example, become, presto changeo, punk eek! And if someone has the
>temerity to point out that this merely draws attention to the lack,
>Mr. S. J. Gould or his analog huffs and puffs and expresses
>discontent that "his" work should give "aid and comfort" to the
>"creationists."
See above. Jim is right. Evolutionists, at their apologetics, ie.
in the popular writings of Gould and Dawkins, are no different to
creationists.
TM>Do you ever read the scientific literature? I get two scientific
>journals monthly and it's loaded with refutations, corrections, etc.
Yes, but these are generally not at the apologetic level - they
usually are about minor hypotheses that do not affect the central
claims of evolutionary theory.
TM>As for Gould, he was right, it shouldn't give "aid and comfort" to
>creationists. Creationists (primarily the YEC types) have a habit of
>distorting what people say, including Gould, and also making
>incredible leaps from what the scientist says to some pro-creationist
>conclusion.
This just confirms what Jim and I are saying in defence of
Ross. Ross could equally argue (say), "Why should I publish a
retraction about my earlier claim that Y-chromosome studies show that
Homo sapiens is only 100,000 old"? "I still believe that man is
less than 100,000 years old, even if this particular piece of
data now appears not to support it. If I publish a retraction
it might turn out to be too early, since further studies might
re-confirm the original conclusions." "Also, imagine the
headlines in evolutionist publications: `Ross gets it wrong -
again!!' ". "I think I'll wait and see what develops".
As to "distorting what people say", no doubt it does happen in
creationist literature, but the claim is often made without any
supporting evidence. In my experience, YECs are scrupulously careful
in citing evolutionists quotes. It is there interests to do so, as
YEC Andrew Snelling points out in respect of a YEC quote book:
"Gleefully, our opponents have used it to try to show how creationists
are willing to be dishonest to support their case. But this is a
silly charge, as a moment's reflection will show. For a start, words
that were changed, with one or two exceptions, almost never added to
the force of the quote or changed the point that was being made, so
why would we be so foolish as to give our opponents such an obvious
club with which to beat the creationist cause?" (Snelling A., "The
Revised QUOTE BOOK", 1990, Creation Science Foundation: Brisbane,
inside cover)
Whether Gould likes it or not, his espousal of sudden appearance and
gaps in the fossil record, does give "aid and comfort to
creationists". Darwin believed that "natura non facit saltum"
(nature makes no jumps) supported evolution and contradicted
creation. Now that Gould has proposed that nature does indeed make
jumps, evolutionists can hardly blame creationists for seeing that
as contradicting evolution and supporting creation.
TM>Punk eek is no comfort to creationists because all it really does
>is explain trends. Creationists have taken this to mean that there
>are only gaps in the record, which is untrue. The same is true for
Ager, who stated in his book on catastrophism should not give comfort
to creationists because he know that his work would be distorted by
them - and it has been.
See above. Evolutionists are being naive if they think that PE
"is no comfort to creationists". It plainly is! Look at the index
of any YEC book and you will find that there are more entries
under "Gould S.J." than any other author.
Whether you think thatr PE *should* be a "comfort to creationists"
depends on your paradigm. If ultimately evolution is right,
then PE will eventually turn out to be no "comfort to creationists".
But OTOH, if creation is ultimately right, then PE could be seen as
approaching the truth despite a faulty paradigm. Again see Denton on
the paradigm shifts in Ptolemaic to Copernican astronomy and from
Phlogiston to Oxygen chemistry.
It all depends on one's paradigm. If you can imagine for a moment
that the creationists are believe they are right in their main claim -
that the universe, life and life's major groups, were called into
being by the command of an all-powerful Creator, then it makes sense
from their point of view to seize on these crumbs that support sudden
appearance from the high table of evolutionary science.
JB>Even the wonderful evolutionist writer G. R. Taylor, when valiantly
>exposing the lacunae in Darwinism, trembled at the thought that
>creationists might jump on this. The fear of refutation, it seems,
>cuts across all lines.
TM>No, it's the fear of intentional distortion by some groups in order
>to push their own political/social positions. If you don't like the
>fact that scientists think of creationists this way, you really need
>to look at what you, and other creationists are doing.
See above. Gould rants long about "intentional distortion" by YECs but
offers very few examples - I concede there may be some (save your
stamp as Dawkins says! :-).
I don't think Gould is being dishonest in this - he genuinely believes
he is right and creationists are wrong. But just consider for a
moment (even as a thought-experiment) if creationists are right in
their main claim - even if wrong on subsidiary details (eg. age of
the Earth, global flood, etc). The their endeavour to "to push their
own political/social positions" is the right thing to do, even if some
of their means may not be.
TM>If creationists are ever going to get beyond this problem, you need
>to police yourselves much better. Of course, how you label
>yourselves also causes problems for you (just as most labels do). I
>tend to think much more highly of OEC's than YEC's for a variety of
>reasons. When OEC's refer to themselves as "creationists," they
>bring the baggage of the ICR and others. In other words, all the
>problems created by YEC directly affect all creationists. I think
>Ross has recognized this problem and has worked to point out errors
>as they arise at least in the YEC camp.
I agree that YEC's do cause a problem for other creationists. But
that is only a problem for creationists (ie. both YEC and OEC). If
creation is untrue, then both YEC and OEC are wrong, and both should
be equally resisted by Naturalistic Evolutionists. But if creation is
true, then even YEC is closer to the truth than Naturalistic
Evolution.
TM>Is there a fear of refutation? Yes and no. They have no fear of
>refutation from creationists, indeed I know of nothing that was
>refuted by creationists (at least in any real sense) before the
>mainstream scientists. There is some fear that work will be refuted,
>however many, including me, actually hope that their work will be
>refuted, mainly because it will advance new and hopefully better
>ideas.
I know it might sound strange to you Thomas, but I suggest many
creationists feel the same, ie. they "actually hope that their work
will be refuted". I know that if Creationism was untrue, I would like
it to be shown decisively that it is untrue. Christianity is a hard
road and in some ways it would be a relief to believe that when I
die that will be it. It will be depressing to believe that
man is just an accident and that eventually the whole Universe will
die in a final heat death and everything man has worked for will be as
though it never was. If you've got that decisive evidence, please
post it, so we can all save our phone bills! :-)
Unfortunately, to date evolutionists haven't come within a bull's roar
of refuting Creation itself, even if they have shown that certain
creationist sub-theories (eg. Ussher's 4004 BC date of creation,
etc), are wrong. Some of their key arguments, eg. Gould's panda's
thumb, are pathetic, aimed as they are at a caricature of God they
probably learned at Sunday School!
If evolutionists want to stop creationists permanenty, they must show
that Creationism itself is wrong. Otherwise creationists will just
maintain their "central core...dogmatically held and protected by a
belt of hypotheses that can be adjusted to improve the program's fit
with the empirical data." Evolutionists have not yet shown
Creationism is wrong, and judging by the weakness of their efforts to
date, I don't think they can do it.
The bottom line is that if evolutionists can't show that Creationism
per se is wrong, then evolutionists should not act as though it is
wrong.
Happy New Year!
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------