On Mon, 15 Apr 1996 10:48:22 -0400 you wrote:
[continued]
>SJ>Brian, we are never going to get anywhere if you don't deal with
>what I say, but slide off on tangents! :-)
>BH>Good grief Steve. You are the one trying to slip out of a noose.
>You claimed that there were only two alternatives, chance and
>intelligent design. You forgot about physical law. If you
>don't like my example, so what, its just an example. The point
>is that I have shown your claim to be false.
SJ>I am not trying to "slip out of a noose". I still maintain that
>"there were only two alternatives, chance and intelligent design".
>Physical law does not apply to unique events, such as the origin of
>life. And even if it did, it would be part of "intelligent design"
Note: I now realise that I have fallen into a bit of a trap here. My
original argument was "there were only two alternatives" natural and
supernatural. AFAIK I did not say "chance and intelligent design",
and if this is so you have put words into my mouth - I will need to be
more careful in future when debating with you! :-) However, I am
happy to continue with "chance and intelligent design" as long as it
is understood in the sense of "natural and supernatural".
BH>A couple of points here. First, the role that laymen might play
>in science has been discussed recently in another thread and
>some in this thread as well. My own view is that anyone can
>participate in science and in discussions about science. However,
>they cannot use their laymanship as a crutch or as an excuse
>for faulty arguments or ignorance, i.e. if you want to play
>you better be prepared, know your stuff, and when someone
>attacks your position, no whining.
First, your tagline says you are an "Associate Professor" of "Applied
Mechanics". This means in discussions of the origin of life and
evolution, you are just as much a "layman" as I am:
"Being a scientist is not necessarily an advantage when dealing with a
very broad topic like evolution, which cuts across many scientific
disciplines and also involves issues of philosophy. Practicing
scientists are of necessity highly specialized, and A SCIENTIST
OUTSIDE HIS FIELD OF EXPERTISE IS JUST ANOTHER LAYMAN."
(Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", InterVarsity Press: Illinois,
Second Edition, 1993, p13. emphasis mine)
Secondly, I am not using my "laymanship as a crutch or as an excuse"
and neither do I believe my arguments are "faulty".
Thirdly, I am not "whining" when someone attacks my position. I ask
for no special treatment and I am certainly not getting any! :-) I
must admit I was originally a bit surprised when some *Christians*
started using ad hominem arguments against me (even atheists on
Fidonet were better behaved), but now I am getting used to it. I
regard it as their problem not mine.
BH>Above you claim there are only two alternatives, chance and
>intelligent design. You are apparently unaware that the
>chance scenario for the origin of life was discarded about
>three decades ago.
You are trying to put words into my mouth. I am am aware that "the
chance scenario for the origin of life" has officially been
"discarded":
"It is apparent that "chance" should be abandoned as an acceptable
model for coding of the macromolecules essential in living systems.
In fact, it has been, except in introductory texts and
popularizations." (Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The
Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Lewis &
Stanley: Dallas TX, 1992, p146)
But Thaxton, Bradley & Olsen (p154) also point out that chance is
still implicit in OOL models:
"Periodically, we see reversions (perhaps inadvertent ones) to chance
in the theoretical models advanced to solve the problem. Eigen's
model illustrates this well. The model he sets forth must necessarily
arise from chance events and is nearly as incredible as the chance
origin of life itself. The fact that generally chance has to be
invoked many times in the abiotic sequence has been called by Brooks
and Shaw `a major weakness in the whole chemical evolutionary
theory' (Brooks J. and Shaw G., "Origin and Development of Living
Systems"Academic Press: London and New York, 1973, p73)"
Indeed, someone should have told Dawkins that "the chance scenario for
the origin of life was discarded about three decades ago", because in
*1991*, only *5* years ago, he relied *exclusively* on "the chance
scenario for the origin of life" in his book "The Blind Watchmaker":
"I shall build up to this point using a specific example which is the
other main theme of this chapter. This example is the problem of how
life originated on Earth....We can accept a certain amount of luck in
our explanations, but not too much. The question is, how much? The
immensity of geological time entitles us to postulate more improbable
coincidences than a court of law would allow but, even so, there are
limits. Cumulative selection is the key to all our modern
explanations of life...but it had to get started, and we cannot escape
the need to postulate a single-step chance event in the origin of
cumulative selection itself....All who have given thought to the
matter agree that an apparatus as complex as the human eye could not
possibly come into existence through single-step selection.
Unfortunately, the same seems to be true of at least parts of the
apparatus of cellular machinery whereby DNA replicates itself...in
this chapter we are asking how improbable, how miraculous, a single
event we are allowed to postulate. What is the largest single event
of sheer naked coincidence, sheer unadulterated miraculous luck, that
we are allowed to get away with in our theories, and still say that we
have a satisfactory explanation of life?" (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, pp139-141)
BH>Not only are you guilty of arguing from the false alternative
No so! Firstly you have subtly changed my original natural and
supernatural "alternative" to a "chance and intelligent design"
argumnent. Secondly your own "false alternative" example above
actually supports my argument!
BH>you select as the opposition an alternative scientists
>working in the field already consider false. How convenient.
See above. You have muddied the waters by putting words into my
mouth. And Dawkins claimed the origin of life was by chance *in 1991*
(only 5 years ago), in his book "The Blind Watchmaker" and he received
plaudits of praise from leading Darwinists including Ruse, Ayala,
Ghiselin, Charlesworth, E.O. Wilson and Maynard Smith, not to mention
OOL specialist Cairns-Smith:
"He disposes of the arguments for God the Designer without diminishing
our sense of the mystery and complexity of our world ... indeed he
increases our sense of wonder. Dawkins's speculative attempts to
account for human self-consciousness and our interest in our own
doings are ingenious and daring' - A. G. Cairns-Smith in the
Independent" (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London,
1991, p.i)
And for his pains Dawkins was awarded the 1989 Silver Medal of the
Zoological Society of London and the 1990 Royal Society Michael-
Faraday Award for the furtherance of the public understanding of
science. He has recently been appointed to the Charles Simonyi Chair
of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford.
BH>Meanwhile, researchers contiue to
>pursue the other alternatives of which you are apparently
>unaware. Your own words prove that you don't know anything
>about the field.
They were *your* "own words" that you managed to start attributing to
me. But according to your argument, nor does Dawkins or Cairns-Smith
"know anything about the field" either!
BH>Secondly, your statement that physical law doesn't apply
>to unique events is simply false. A very simple example is
>the so-called double pendulum, sketched below:
[...]
It was badly worded. I apologise. The point I was trying to make is
that natural law is an insufficient explanation for unique historical
events, as pointed out by Meyer:
"There is a second reason that laws cannot be equated with
explanations or causes. This, in turn, gives rise to another reason
that science cannot be identified only with those disciplines that
explain via natural law. Laws cannot be equated with explanations,
not just because many laws do not explain but also because many
explanations of particular events, especially in applied or historical
science, may not utilize laws. While scientists may often use laws to
assess or enhance the plausibility of explanations of particular
events, analysis of the logical requirements of explanation has made
clear that the citation of laws is not necessary to many such
explanations. Instead, many explanations of particular events or
facts, especially in the historical sciences, depend primarily, even
exclusively, upon the specification of past causal conditions and
events rather than laws to do what might be called the "explanatory
work." That is, citing past causal events often explains a particular
event better than, and sometimes without reference to, a law or
regularity in nature. One reason laws play little or no role in many
historical explanations is that many particular events come into
existence via a series of events that will not regularly reoccur. In
such cases laws are not relevant to explaining the contrast between
the event that has occurred and what could have or might have
ordinarily been expected to occur. For example, a historical
geologist seeking to explain the unusual height of the Himalayas will
cite particular antecedent factors that were present in the case of
the Himalayan orogeny but were absent in other mountain-building
episodes. Knowing the laws of geophysics relevant to
mountain-building generally will aid the geologist very little in
accounting for the contrast between the Himalayan and other orogenies,
since such laws would presumably apply to all mountain-building
episodes. What the geologist needs in the search for an explanation
in this case is not knowledge of a general law but evidence of a
unique or distinctive set of past conditions." (Meyer S.C., "The
Methodological Equivalence of Design & Descent: Can There be a
Scientific `Theory of Creation'?" in Moreland J.P. ed., "The
Creation Hypothesis", 1994, Inter Varsity Press, Illinois, p78-79)
>BH>I take it then that we'll here no more insinuations about cover-ups
>>or conspiracies?
SJ>I have *never ever* said anything about "conspiracies". This is
>your own word which perhaps reflects your own jaundiced view of me.
>And my "cover-up" remark was on a spectrum from "paradigm blindness"
>to "cover up" as a worst-case scenario. Moreover, it was based on a
>>misunderstanding, for which I have apologised.
BH>You may not actually say the word "conspiracy" yet your posts are
>full of unfounded insinuations of such, for example you recently
>wrote in another thread [How the Leopard...? (was Brian Goodwin
>on the web), April 12]:
>
>
> 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":
I do not claim the above is a "conspiracy". If naturalists believe
that naturalistic evolution is a "fact" , then it is understanable
that they try to prevent anti-evolutionists from getting a hearing.
Johnson says:
"It would be inadequate and misleading, however, to account for
modernist rule as if it were a kind of plot by agnostics to rule the
United States by employing deceptive techniques. Modernism is not a
conspiracy, but a way of thinking that is taken for granted not only
by agnostics but also by millions of people who consider themselves
theists but have to some extent adopted modernist ways of thinking
about theism. In fact, the authority of modernism rests largely on
theists' tacit acceptance of modernist premises. It is possible to
make so strong a case for modernism that it may seem futile and
self-destructive for theists to challenge modernism as a public
philosophy." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance", InterVarsity
Press: Downers Grove Ill., 1995, p45)
and
"But of course the naturalists do not leave theistic enclaves alone
nor should they. A naturalistic government that regulates everything
else does not hesitate to reward theistic educational institutions
with their own tax money if they agree to accept "diversity"
standards. Secular academic societies understandably withhold their
approval from faculties that do not meet secular standards of
rationality. Seminarians trained in naturalistic thinking enter the
ministry in droves with the mission of saving Christianity by leading
it into an accommodation with modernism. Granted the metaphysical
assumptions, none of this is in any way reprehensible. People who
think they have truth on their side naturally want to share the truth
with others and to bring enlightenment to private enclaves of
superstition." (Johaves of
superstition." (Johnson, 1995, p203)
BH>So, I'll ask again:
>
> I take it then that we'll here no more insinuations about
> cover-ups or conspiracies?
And I will answer you "again", there never were any "insinuations
about...conspiracies", on my part! :-)
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) |
----------------------------------------------------------------