We're talking about all this business in the abstract. I think that is
necessary to look at specific cases. Remember, let's focus on the content.
If there are logical fallacies in evolutionists' arguments, then I'm more
than happy to let non-experts point them out. But, let's talk about the
specific cases.
I'm not sure what logical problems the critics of evolution are talking
about. I have not found any of Phil Johnson's or Michael Denten's or ...
convincing on these points. When I read Phil Johnson, I did not learn
anything new about evolution nor did I hear any new arguments explaining
why it couldn't be true. He points out interesting problems that are being
addressed by the research community, but in my opinion, he doesn't come
close to undermining the biological theory. I've said before that I find
in DOT an amazing summary of all the evidence FOR evolution. When I remove
the anti-evolutionary bias and what I consider to be the UNSURMOUNTABLE
skepticism (i.e. nothing the evolutionist could say would convince him), he
has no case.
Let's look at Johnson's discussion of natural selection. He focuses on
natural selection as tautology--and certainly, natural selection can be
formulated as a tautology. He leads the reader through this criticism,
trashing this argument from a LOGICAL and PHILOSOPHICAL perspective, only
to say at the end of the chapter that, of course, natural selection can be
formulated in a non-tautologous fashion, which he accepts, but pooh-pooh's
as offering no solution to solving the evolutionary questions that HE is
interested in. The careless reader goes away thinking that natural
selection is a vacuous idea and that a key plank in the evolutionary
argument has be destroyed.
Let's look at the discussion of punctuated equilibrium vs. neo-Darwinism.
Phil plays these two views off each other in such a way that they appear to
be a irresolvable odds. But certainly Niles Eldredge doesn't see it this
way. In fact, punctuated equilibrium has been fished out of the some of
the early neo-Darwinian's own writings. (See Eldredge's book *Reinventing
Darwin*.)
I could go on and on. Denten pits the neutral theory against selectionist
theories. The truth is probably somewhere in between.
Finally, I'd like to suggest that many of us are still working in a
Baconian view of science or Popperian view of science. As Del Ratzsch
says, if we are, we are at least two generations behind in our philosophy
of science. Logical conundrums, experimental results contrary to a theory,
anomolies, etc. are not reasons (at first) to reject a theory. There may
be many resolutions of these problems within the present theory and to
dismiss it prematurely would be a serious error and a setback to the
progress of science. Del points out in his *Philosophy of Science* that it
is not possible rigorously to falsify a theory. A contrary result may be
the result of an erroneous background theory to the one putatively being
tested. So, when are theories overthrown? That's a tough question.
Theories as comprehensive as evolution, broadly speaking, are seldom
overthrown. The theoretical sub-structure may be modified in response to
new results or new ways of thinking. Punctuated equilibrium being
incorporated into the broader evolutionary theory is an example. The big
theories are only overthrown in what the philosophers have called
scientific revolutions.
Phil Johnson and his cadre of design theorists think that they are bringing
a scientific revolution. Maybe they are, but I doubt it--of course,
practitioners of the old paradigm always do. Phil sees the underpinnings
of evolution crashing down--as all good revolutionaries do. I see the
underpinnings of evolution being established more than anytime in the
history of the idea. This sounds like Kuhnian incommensurability, but I
don't really think it is. I think I understand the design theorists'
ideas, I just disagree and have become convinced that there is a theistic
apologetic inextricably linked to their view--a theistic apologetic that I
am sympathetic to but find unnecessary.
Like it not folks, science is a much messier enterprise than we often are
taught.
>Thomas L Moore wrote:
>
>____________SNIP_______________________
>
>You mean for pointing out how lazy the critics of science can be?
>
>___________BIG_SNIP____________________
>
><Sigh> No, Tom, for the umpteenth time, I mean that it's unfair for
>scientists to demand that non-scientists be conversant in the primary
>scientific literature in order to criticize their *LOGIC*, NOT their
>scientific expertise. If a statement is a tautology, or is
>self-referential, or just generally doesn't make LOGICAL sense, having read
>or not having read the primary literature is, in most cases, irrelevant.
>Nowhere in any of my posts have I questioned anyone's scientific expertise.
>But one can be able to quote all the primary literature in his field and
>still be, patently, a fool (I have no one in mind here!). There are two
>issues (at least) involved in this debate - science and philosophy. You're
>addressing one, I'm addressing the other. I just don't know how else to say
>it. I'll ignore the rest of your post since it simply repeats the same
>argument at a higher decibel level.
>
>Chuck
_____________________________________________________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Calvin College 3201 Burton SE Grand Rapids, MI 40546
Office: (616) 957-7187 FAX: (616) 957-6501
Email: grayt@calvin.edu http://www.calvin.edu/~grayt