On Mon, 8 Apr 1996 06:32:16 -0400 you wrote:
BH>Steve Jones quoted Terry Gray:
>TG>Goodwin is part of that new evolutionary synthesis that I mentioned
>in a previous post. So he makes critical comments about
>neo-Darwinism while still being a full-fledged evolutionist. Your
>use of Goodwin in support of PC is like YEC using Gould and Eldredge
>and punctuated equilibrium in support of their view. Johnson plays
>the same games. He uses internal debates among people who are
>convinced of evolution to show that evolution is not true when
>neither side believes that their comments lead to that conclusion.
BH>While I mostly agree with Terry, it seems worth pointing out that
>the issue is not what Gould and Eldredge, etc. believe. The
>quotations are intended to show contradictions in evolution theory.
>Contradictions that perhaps even Gould and Eldredge have not come to
>grips with.
Agreed. Thanks. That was all I was trying to do. I made no claim
that Goodwin was not an evolutionist. But as an outsider, this appears
to be much more than an "internal debate". What Gould and Goodwin say
of Neo-Darwinism would be devastating if true.
BH>But to try to illustrate internal contradictions in a field by
>quoting its practitioners implies that the critic knows something the
>people being quoted don't, or has performed a more thorough analysis
>than they have. And that's the part that destroys the credibility of
>these kinds of attacks.
The logic of this would imply that only scientists (and then only
those of equal standing), can criticise each other's position. This,
if it was espoused by scientists (it isn't AFAIK) would be an absurd
position, more reminiscent of a threatened priesthood than seekers
after truth. The same criteria, if applied consistently, would also
invalidate the opinions of engineers like yourself, as well as
lawyers, theologians and even the average biology professor!
If Goodwin, Gould and Dawkins do not want their arguments taken up and
used by laymen like me, then why do they write books for laymen, with
catchy popular titles like "How the Leopard Changed its Spots", "Eight
Little Piggies", and "The Blind Watchmaker", etc.
Finally, as to my "credibility", I am fairly sure that I am not going
to win a Nobel Prize for Biology, for single-handedly overthrowing
Darwinism! :-) I have no scientific position to lose, and therefore I
am
totally immune to concerns about my status, although I can understand
that scientists who are Christians are concerned about theirs. My only
accountability is to the truth and ultimately to the Lord, who will
judge me for every word I write (Mt 12:36).
BH>Steve continues
SJ>Neither I, nor "Johnson" are playing "games". We have no doubt
that >all the evolutionists regard themselves as "full-fledged
>evolutionists". Indeed we do quote from such "full-fledged
>evolutionists" to point out the internal contradictions between
>"people who are convinced of evolution to show that evolution is not
>true". Indeed, what is the alternative? If you are claiming that
>non-evolutionists are not allowed to quote from evolutionists, then
>this is a neat way of protecting evolution from ever being criticised
>by non-evolutionists!
BH>What is needed is Christians who become involved in the fields they
>are criticizing. People who shout, "you're full of baloney" from the
>sidelines are seldom taken seriously.
The problem is that "Christians" who do "become involved in the
fields", must either toe the naturalist party line, or be
marginalised. The Kenyon case is one example. To actually suggest
that evolution (ie. naturalistic macro-evolution) might be wrong,
would be, in the current climate, a form of career suicide. Indeed, a
strong "natural selection" operates here. Many fine Christians who
would challenge Naturalism, probably don't enter science. And of those
who do enter science, only those who have a strong committment to
Naturalism, would remain in science and graduate at PhD level. What we
have, after this filtering process, is Christian scientists who are
strongly committed to the Naturalist cause. This of course, is not to
say anything against them personally. As Christians they are
methodological naturalists, not metaphysical naturalists.
Interestingly, those who are criticising evolution, in its
Neo-Darwinian form, are coming from within the ranks of metaphysical
naturalists, like Goodwin, Gould and Patterson. Art has recently sent
me a copy of Patterson's 1981 AMNH transcript. It is an absolutely
devastating critique of evolution, by one of its favourite sons. What
I cannot understand is how eminent *non-Christian* biologists like
Goodwin, Patterson, Grasse and Gould, can examine Neo-Darwinist
evolution and find it so bereft of scientific merit and yet
*Christian* theistic evolutionists can be so ardent in its defence,
and be so critical of their non-evolutionist Christian brothers
who dare to take up the points raised by these anti-Darwinian
non-Christian biologists.
SJ>On that basis *no* paradigm could ever be
>overthrown. What a wonderful defence that would be for Christian
>apologists: those who would point out alleged Biblical contradictions
>are not allowed to quote from the Bible because the writers were all
>convinced theists! :-)
BH>Good example. How do you react to alleged Bible contradictions from
>atheists, cynics, etc.? Usually it's obvious that the critic is either
>unaware of, or discounting without justification something Christians are
>well aware of. And for that reason the attack loses its credibility.
No. I do not rule out in advance critics' right to quote from the
Bible
or to criticise Christianity. I examine their argument on its merit,
and if it made its point, I would accept it. Obviously, if "the
critic is either unaware of, or discounting without justification
something Christians are well aware of", then I would not agree
with the argument, but state exactly why, with good reasons for my
position.
Indeed, this is precisely what the whole Christian body of knowledge
called Apologetics is. Christians have never (except perhaps when the
Church was dominant in the Middle Ages), discounted a priori,
non-Christians right to quote from the Bible or to criticise
Christianity. They have taken the arguments on board, and have come
up with intellectually satisfying counter-arguments. Indeed, that is
how much of Christian theology has developed, eg. the Trinity, the
Person of Christ, the Scriptures, etc.
BH>As I've pointed out to Phil before, evolutionists are reacting to
>his criticisms in about the same way I would expect him to react if a
>scientist decided to argue his own case in court.
The point is that "a scientist" would not be prevented from arguing
"his own case in court". He might lose his case, but he would still
be allowed to argue it. What the rulers of science are trying to do
is, as it were, stop the case from being heard at all, on the grounds
that only scientists (who share the same philosophical commitment to
the "fact" of evolution) can judge whether that same "evolution" is
true. This is caesar judging caesar, and it is a hot topic down here
in Australia, with demand by the public to gain access to these
cozy self-regulatory clubs, like doctors judging doctors, lawyers
judging lawyers and police judging police. This is why Phil is
arguing that in the absence of an official "opposition party" someone
from outside of science should be allowed to "audit the books":
"The danger of heuristic assumptions, though, is that they so easily
turn into facts in the eyes of those who rely on them. Previously
successful military commanders may convince themselves that defeat
really is impossible and continue a suicidal campaign arbitrarily
refusing to credit intelligence reports documenting the overwhelming
strength of the enemy. Behavioral psychologist may train themselves
to think that all human behavior really car be explained as responses
to rewards and punishments. Economists may become convinced that
people really are economically rational, and particle physicists may
flatter themselves that they really are capable of discovering the
ultimate secrets of the universe. The professionals always tend to
exaggerate their successes, especially when they are competing for
funding or public respect, and they have a corresponding ability to
forget about facts that do not fit their theories. At some point,
outsiders need to come in and audit the books. But an audit that is
done at the wrong time may be misleading. The books may look pretty
shaky today, but the managers of the enterprise may be confident that
a smashing success is just around the corner. The big problem is
deciding when to stop believing their promises of eventual success,
particularly when the managers have been successful in the past. As
Weinberg observes, outsiders like me may lack feeling for the problems
that any scientific theory has in accounting for all the observations.
Outsiders may think that discordant observations have invalidated the
theory, while the insiders are facing the situation with confidence,
convinced that their approach to the problems is fundamentally sound
and will lead to eventual success. How can we tell who is correct?
It's a good question, but the solution is not to grant the insiders
the exclusive privilege of auditing themselves." (Johnson P.E.,
"Reason in the Balance", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill.,
1995, pp93-94)
The funny thing is that "Phil" *is* starting to be listened to by some
leading evolutionists like Gould, Eldredge, etc., who have doubts
about Neo-Darwinism, even though they cling to the "fact" of
evolution. They may not agree with him, but by at least listening to
him, they are acknowledging that he may have something important to
say. They do not listen to Theistic Evolutionists, presumably because
their views are scientifically innocuous?
As for me, I believe it is at least possible that the God of the Bible
progressively created the universe, first life and life's complex
designs. Therefore, even though a non-scientists, I will, in the best
traditions of science, advance both arguments for this hypothesis, and
arguments against competing hypotheses (eg. NE, ND, PC, TE, EC, etc),
from an eclectic variety of sources. I am totally unconcerned if no
one believes what I say (although it would be nice if some did! <g>),
and I am even learning to cope with ad hominem comments of those who
apparently cannot refute my arguments. The only thing that will work
with me, is compelling arguments against my position.
I am conscious that God's truth is never decided by a majority
opinion, and that those individuals whom God uses have nearly always
been "The voice of one crying in the wilderness" (Mt 3:3). Indeed,
from a Christian perspective, support of the world in the creation v
evolution debate is probably an adverse compliment! (Jn 15:19; Jas
2:5; 1Jn 2:15)! :-)
God bless.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| 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) |
----------------------------------------------------------------