On Fri, 29 Dec 1995 22:16:28 -0700 (MST) you wrote:
[...]
TM>Probably the best example of this I can cite within the YEC
>community is the Kuznetsov problem. The only organization at the
>moment that I have not heard or read a statement regarding the
>questionable ethics of Kuznetsov is the ICR - statements have been
>made by CRS and the australian group. Of course, it has not been
>resolved and it will prove interesting to follow.
The Australian Creation Science Foundation (CSF) is AFAIK, virtually
the ICR in Australia. In their Prayer News May 1995 (no Denis and
Glenn - I only get it because I subscribe to their journal! :-)),
they state:
"DISSOCIATION WITH DR KOUZNETSOV
(1) For well over a year now, CSF has had increasing concerns
regarding certain financial matters involving Dr Dmitri Kouznetsov of
Moscow, who has spoken in Australia on our behalf in 1991. While our
investigation continued, we gave Dr Kouznetsov ample opportunity to
clear his name. In spite of his repeated assurances (to us and other
concerned creationists) that he had the evidence to clear himself, he
had repeatedly failed to provide it.
(2) In the meanwhile, we notice that a recent edition of the
International Journal of Neuroscience raised serious concerns about an
article in that publication written by Dr Kouznetsov. It seems that a
significant number of references cited were from journals and/or
persons which do not appear to exist. Dr Kouznetsov has been urged to
respond appropriately to this situation as well, but to date he has
failed to do so.
(3) It therefore saddens us to have to issue this public dissociation
and explanation, but we assure you that if an when Dr Kouznetsov is
exonerated we will keep you informed.
(Wieland C. (ed), "Prayer News of Creation Science Foundation
Ltd", May 1995, p2)
[...]
TM>Frankly, I think the use of quotes should be stopped by both sides.
>It makes great propaganda (especially the way they are sometimes
>used) but it doesn't advance any real understanding.
While quotes can be misused, this is asking Creationists to fight with
both hands behind their backs. An essential part of their apologetic
is to attempt to show that *evolutionists themselves* have problems
with aspects of evolution. It would be useless quoting creationist
writers, because that would prove nothing, and in nay case be ignored.
Snelling again:
"Evolutionists have often protested unfair to quoting an evolutionist
as if he were against evolution itself. So let it be said from the
outset that the vast majority of authorities quoted are themselves
ardent believers in evolution. But that is precisely the point, and
the value of The Revised QUOTE BOOK. The foundations of the
evolutionary edifice are hardly likely to be shaken by a collection of
quotes from the many scientists who are biblical creationists. In a
court of law, an admission from a hostile witness is the most
valuable. Quoting the evolutionary palaeontologist who admits the
absence of in-between forms, or the evolutionary biologist who admits
the hopelessness of the mutation/selection mechanism, is perfectly
legitimate if the admission is accurately represented in its own
right, regardless of whether the rest of the article is full of hymns
of praise to all the other aspects of evolution."
(Snelling A., "The Revised QUOTE BOOK", 1990, Creation Science
Foundation: Brisbane, inside cover)
The Creation v Evolution debate is a "culture war", a battle of
ideas. The evolutionists have the upper hand, having almost total
control of centres of learning and scientific journals. Creationists
find themselves in many ways in the same situation the early
Christians did, when confronting the hostile Jews and apathetic Roman
world. What did they do? They used quotes! To the Jews the
Christians quote the OT, especially those passages like Isa 53, which
seemed to predict a Messiah like Jesus of Nazareth. Paul, before the
pAreopagus, in debating with Epicurean, in Acts 17:28 quoted pagan
poets to them:
"For in him we live, and move, and have our being..." (Epimenides
"Cretica", 600 BC) and "For we are also his offspring" (Aratus,
"Phaenomeena", 315-240 BC, or Cleanthes, "Hymn to Zeus", 331-233).
No doubt the Epicureans or Stoics could have accused Paul of selective
quoting, quoting out of context, etc., but it was the *only* way of
making a point of contact with them.
SJ>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>Of course, they are talking about two entirely different kinds of
>jumps and that's why it is such a distortion. Punk eek isn't
>saltation, and Darwin, as I remember, did say that rates may vary.
>So, "evolutionists" can certainly find fault.
Sorry, but jumps are jumps. Darwin claimed that "nature *does not*
make jumps ("natura non facit saltum"), several times in his Origin.
And Gould has come very close to supporting saltationism, stating:
"...I envisage a potential saltational origin for the essential
features of key adaptations." (Gould S.J., "Is a new and general
theory of evolution emerging?", Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January
1980, p127)
and predicting that the saltationist geneticist Goldschmidt would be
vindicated:
"I do, however, predict that during this decade Goldschmidt will be
largely vindicated in the world of evolutionary biology." (Gould
S.J., "The Return of the Hopeful Monster", "The Panda's Thumb", 1980,
Penguin, London, p155).
His recent break with Dawkins over the fundamental gene-selection
model and the rejection of the "uniformitarian vision of
extrapolation", claiming "the ultimate failure of Cronin's (ie.
Dawkins') adaptionism, as a general evolutionary model" and that
"extrapolationism fails and adaptationism succumbs" (Gould S.J., "The
Confusion About Evolution" in "The New York Review of Books", November
19, 1992, a review of "The Ant and the Peacock: Altruism and Sexual
Selection from Darwin to Today", Cambridge U. Press, 1991, by Helena
Cronin. see also Johnson, "Reason in the Balance", p84ff), leaves
Gould nowhere to go.
As Johnson points out:
"If Gould is correct on that point, then to select for individual
genes or even gene combinations is not to select for predictable
properties in the adult organism. But in that case, how can the
complex adaptations that Dawkins and Cronin seek to explain be built
up by a process of mutation and selection?" (Johnson, RITB, p84)
[...]
SJ>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.
TM>Gould is cited more than any other author because he writes a great
>deal of stuff. You practically have to cite the guy when any time
>discussing c/e issues no matter if you agree with his points are not.
>But that doesn't mean that the use of punk eek by creationists is
>anything other than distortion, as he himself stated in _In the
>Beginning..._
It is not the volume of Gould's writings, but their *content* that
creationists find "comfort" in. You can be sure that Gould's denial
of Dawkins' extrapolationism and adaptationism, will feature in every
YEC book from now on. That's because it is *news*: G"If a dog bites a
man, that's not news, but if a man bites a dog, that *is* news"!
SJ>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
TM>what kind of creation? YEC? OEC/PC? TE?
*All* forms of creationism, from YEC -> OEC ->PC. Preumably TE would
not claim to be "creationism".
[..]
SJ>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.
TM>Of course, when you have so little you have to steal what you can
>get - not a very good analogy is it? The problem here is that punk
>eek is designed to explain a subset of data within the fossil record
>- apparent rate. You force "evolutionists" into a very unrealistic
>and unscientific spot - that the rate of evolution must be gradual,
>anything else means creation occurred. Of course, this is really
>what happened in the earth sciences as a whole in the last century.
>However, rates must be established based on the data, not because
>some group thinks that a fast irregular rate means creation, because
>it doesn't. If you think it's creation, you still need evidence of
>it.
We are talking about an apologetic - a mission to the naturalistic
evolutionist world. Just like the early Christian mission to the
gentiles, creationists (form Morris to Johnson) must use the internal
contradictions in the writings of convinced evolutionists, to make
their case. I does work! Prof. Dean Kenyon, Professor of Biology
San Francisco State University, and formerly a prominent
evolutionary origin of life researcher has testified to the value of
YEC apologetics:
"My own initiation into creationist scientific writing came in 1976
with the geological sections of Whitcomb and Morris' The Genesis
Flood, and somewhat later, A. E. Wilder-Smith 's The Creation of Life:
A Cybernetic Approach to Evolution. It soon became apparent to me
that the creationist challenge to evolutionism was indeed a formidable
one, and I no longer believe that the arguments in Biochemical
Predestination (Kenyon and Steinman, McGraw-Hill, 1969) and in similar
books by other authors, add up to an adequate defense of the view that
life arose spontaneously on this planet from nonliving matter. Over
the last number of years I have extensively reviewed the scientific
case for creation and now believe that all students of the sciences
(at any level) should be taught the major arguments of both the
creation and evolutionary views." (Dean H. Kenyon, Ph.D.,
Foreword, Morris H.M. & Parker G.E., "What is Creation Science?",
1987)
Creationists do also publish evidence of creation - see Hugh Ross'
writings, eg. "The Fingerprint of God", "The Creator and the Cosmos",
and "Creation and Time". Also Ross has a chapter titled "Astronomical
Evidences for a Personal, Transcendent God", in Moreland J.P. ed.,
"The Creation Hypothesis", 1994)
[...]
SJ>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>Of course, you can also consider the opposit as a
>thought-experiment. Creatinists are wrong (remember - an experiment)
>and they are wrong in the details, are they right to push their own
>political/social positions? That's not the point anyway. No matter
>if your position is actually the correct one, you should do you best
>to not distort, lie, or do nasty things...The ends do not always
>justify the means.
No one is defending *intentional* distortion. But very few apologists
intentionally distort. There is no point - it will be found out and it
will weaken one's case. IMHO 99% of claims of "distortion" are based
on different paradigms.
>TM>If creationists are ever going to get beyond this problem, you
>need to police yourselves much better....all the problems created by
>YEC directly affect all creationists.
SJ>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>There are two views of evolution, TE and atheistic. If God did
>create using a form of OEC (PC/TE) and you are YEC, are you really
>worshiping the same God that created the universe? This isn't a
>point, but a real question I have. If your doctrinal views are
>incorrect about Creation and God, are you really closer to being
>right as a YEC when OEC is correct than a "naturalistic
>evolutionist?" In both cases, the view of God is wrong (and taken to
>an extreme, false - i.e. false gods)
The ultimate test of whether OEC's and YECs "are...worshiping the same
God" is "does God think so"? :-) The difference among Christians on
the tempo and mode of creation has IMHO no effect on their standing as
Christians and very little (if any) effect on their worship:
"Deciding what is primary and what is secondary is often difficult,
but in the case of evolution, it was easy for me. The primary point
is not how long it took God to create, or whether he created things
abruptly or gradually, or whether the first chapters of Genesis are to
be interpreted literally or figuratively. These are all important
issues in their way, but they are secondary. The primary issue is
whether God created us at all." (Phillip E. Johnson, "Shouting
`Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin", Christianity Today, October 24,
1994, p26)
[...]
SJ>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
TM>I should point out here that I don't believe that if you're a
>creationist you are dishonest or intentionally distortive. I think
>there are a large number of creationists (the majority, especially if
>you include all groups) trying to go about things as honestly as
>possible. Indeed, when I have a chance, I like to watch Hugh Ross'
>tv show. I think he often takes huge leaps, but that's to be
>expected to some degree. I have a great deal of respect for what
>he's trying to do. The same is true for others including people like
>Glenn Morton.
Thanks. I also believe that most evolutionists are honest,
especially Gould, although Dawkins' tests my faith here! :-)
SJ>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! :-)
TM>"Creation" can not be disproved because it spans the possibilities.
>No matter what reconstruction of happened in the past, there is a
>form of creationism that can embrace it (except maybe one form for
>Christian [and maybe muslim] creationists). There is a creationism
>with evolution, a creationism without evolution yet an old earth, a
>creationism of a young earth - all from one base religion. Indeed,
>other hypotheses can be easily accomodated by some form of
>creationism, such as pansperia. Such a wide definition for
>"creation" is much worse than the plasticity of the theory of
>evolution as claimed by Gish and others.
This is not "worse". Creation is after all a high-level,
all-embracing, metaphysical world-view. The difference with evolution
is that it is likewise an all-embracing, metaphysical world-view, but
it doesn't like to admit it, because much of it masquerades as
taxpayer funded science.
TM>The one form that I think Christians couldn't accept is a true
>"Last Tuesdayism." That is, the universe etc was created last
>Tuesday, or even 5 minutes ago. I expect this one would be not
>accepted because it would mean jesus never existed except as a
>planted memory in minds and books. Of course, other religions could
>potentially accept this kind of creationism.
YEC's flirt with this in their "appearance of age" argument. No only
do I think it is wrong, it is ultimately self-refuting. Christianity
is based on realism - the Risen Christ was *real* not just an
apparition or a halucination. Abandon realism and IMHO you abandon
Christianity (save *your* stamp, Denis! :-)).
SJ>Unfortunately, to date evolutionists haven't come within a bull's
roar >of refuting Creation itself...a caricature of God they
>probably learned at Sunday School!
TM>Isn't Sunday school where they are supposed to learn about God?
Yes, in the same way that in First Grade one learns about maths! :-)
TM>I think the best point that can be made regarding design arguments
>is that it's pointless. You can't point to "perfection" of design
>because it doesn't exist. To explain for imperfect design, a
>creationist needs only to invoke the fact we can't know God's mind.
>If both evolution and creation expect both good and bad design,
>what's the point of the argument? Yet design questions are raised by
>people like Gould because a primary argument in the creationist
>community is the argument from design...So, as long as creationists
>point toward design as an argument, the Panda's thumb will always be
>a counter-argument..I would argue that argument from design is purely
>a propagandic argument.
The design argument is essential to Judeo-Christian Theism and its
apologetics. It is inbuilt into the Bible, eg. Ps 139:14 "I praise
you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are
wonderful, I know that full well."
Indeed, Dawkins sees design it as *the* central problem to be
explained:
"The problem is that of complex design...The complexity of living
organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent
design. If anyone doesn't agree that this amount of complex design
cries out for an explanation, I give up." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, pp.xiii)
Gould has unintentionally done Christian apologetics a service by
pointing out that though the design of living things is is not
ideally perfect (although Denton points out in a chapter entitled "The
Puzzle of Perfection" that there is "general perfection of design in
nature":
"Aside from any quantitative considerations, it seems intuitively,
impossible that such self-evident brilliance in the execution of
design could ever have been the result of chance. For, even if we
allow that chance might have occasionally hit on a relatively
ingenious adaptive end, it seems inconceivable that it could have
reached so many ends of such surpassing "perfection". It is, of
course, possible to allude to certain sorts of apparent
"imperfections" in life, where an adaptation conveys the impression
that nature often makes do in an opportunistic sort of way,
moulding the odd lucky accident into something resembling an
"imperfect" adaptation. This is the thrust of Gould's argument in his
discussion of the curiously elongated bone in the hand of a panda
which it uses as a kind of a thumb. Yet, just as a few missing links
are not sufficient to close the gaps of nature, a few imperfect
adaptations which give every impression of having been achieved by
chance are certainly, amid the general perfection of design in nature,
an insufficient basis on which to argue for the all-sufficiency of
chance. Such imperfections only serve to highlight the fact that, in
general, biological adaptations exhibit, as Darwin confessed: "a
perfection of structure and coadaptations which justly excites our
admiration." (Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", Burnett
Books: London, 1985, p327)
SJ>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.
TM>I don't think "evolutionists" want to stop creationists
>permanently, as a whole. There are a few atheists out there that
>would like to bury all religion, but that's certainly not the
>majority. Some forms of creationism, in my view, have been shown
>wrong for over a century, such as YEC. Others look a lot like
>evolution, such as TE and PC (PC looks like it, not that it is). Of
>course, TE _is_ evolution. I'm not interested in disproving God, nor
>are most "evolutionists."
OK. While most evolutionists may not interested in disproving God,
the really committed atheistic ones, like Dawkins are. And they wield
a lot of influence and shape public opinion to believe that either
there is no God, or He is irrelevant.
TM>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.
TM>Here I think is yet another case-in-point regarding terminology of
>"creationism." Most "evolutionists" regard the general group of
>"creationists" as being YEC. Why? Because by the broad sense of
>creationism, many, if not most, "evolutionists" would also be
>considered "creationist." The result, of course, is that
>"creationists" quickly become equated with YEC. So, to them
>"creationists" are wrong because the evidence is very very strong
>that the earth is old, to start with.
I think that strangely enough it suits both sets of extremists on the
evolutionist and creationist sides to ignore the majority under the
normal curve. The Goulds and Dawkins' of this world like to
portray all creationists as YECs and the YECs like to portray
themselves as the only real creationists.
Thanks for this looooong discussion Tom. :-)
Happy New Year!
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------