On Tue, 16 Apr 1996 14:58:49 -0400 you wrote:
TG>I don't know if I'm the one who started this thread, but I earlier
>complained about the common practice of anti-evolutionists quoting
>evolutionists to make their arguments against evolution. We've even
>heard of a "quote book for creationists".
Indeed, and a very useful little book it is:
Snelling A., "The Revised Quote Book", Creation Science Foundation:
Brisbane, 1990)
While I don't agree with the author's Creation-Science, I found his
marshalling of quotes by leading evolutionists questioning aspects
of evolution to be quite an eye-opener to one like myself who thought
that there was no significant dissent among evolutionists and the best
strategy for the Church was to accommodate itself to it, and regard it
as the means that God used in developing His living world. But then I
read such admissions as:
"3. The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is
thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an
unproved theory-is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory
of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special
creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but
neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof." (L. Harrison
Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of Species, J. M.
Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p. xi, in Snelling A., "The Revised
QUOTE BOOK", 1990, Creation Science Foundation, Brisbane, p2).
and
"7. Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one
which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every
conceivable observation can be fitted in to it. It is thus "outside
of empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can think of
ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a
few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified
systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have
become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of
our training." (Paul Ehrlich (Professor of Biology, Stanford
University) and L. Charles Birch (Professor of Biology, University of
Sydney), 'Evolutionary history and population biology'. Nature, vol.
214, 22 April 1967, p. 352).
and
"13. With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the
somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of
living origins which it could not demonstrate . After having chided
the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found
itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of
its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could
not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the
primeval past." (Loren Eiseley, Ph.D. (anthropology), 'The secret of
life' in The Immense Journey, Random House, New York, 1957, p. 199, in
Snelling, p4, in Snelling, p4)
TG>My complaint is not based on the notion that only scientists can
>criticize other scientists (although I'm with those who do believe
>that a certain amount of expert knowledge is required in order to
>even talk about some things, but you don't have to get a Ph.D. to
>get that kind of expert knowledge).
Agreed. But it should be possible for the layman to do this by
reading the more popular scientific journals (eg. Scientific
American, New Scientists, etc) and books written by prominent
evolutionists for the lay market (eg. Gould, Dawkins, Goodwin, etc).
If it isn't, then what are such such journals and books for?
TG>My complaint is against people who think that if you quote an
>evolutionist to criticize a certain point in evolutionary theory that
>you've knocked out that point. It's sort of a back-door appeal to
>the experts. This is what Stephen Jones seems to do alot and is at
>the heart of the "quote book" mentality.
No, its not what I do at all, and neither is it what I think. I have
never claimed that any quote I have posted is a knock-out. I see them
as cumulative evidence against Darwinist naturalistic macro-evolution
and therefore indirectly support for progressive creationism.
Continuing with your analogy, I believe there is no need to "knock
out" Darwinist naturalistic macro-evolution - it is suffient to win on
points! :-)
TG>I do believe that Phil Johnson falls into this at times
>(especially in his Dawkins vs. Gould quotes in RITB which is a
>microcosm of his punct eq vs. neo-Darwinism discussion in DOT).
>When you've got two experts disagreeing, it takes more than throwing
>"quote" bombs back and forth in a debate.
It is interesting that when evolutionists quote creationists, as both
Gould and Dawkins do, that is perfectly OK and legitimate. But when
creationists quote evolutionists, that is "throwing `quote' bombs! :-)
TG>And you can't simply say that experts' contradicting each other
>simply invalidates the other--you've got to do the hard work and
>become competent (expert) enough to enter the debate.
I've got bad news for you Terry. Phil Johnson has already entered the
debate: witness his recent debate with Eldredge and the claim by
Steven Weinberg described Johnson as currently "the most respectable
academic critic of evolution" (Weinberg S., "Dreams of a Final
Theory", 1992, pp247-49). Note that TEs are just ignored. I think as
the 21st century unfolds, TE is going to become increasingly
marginalised and the main spokespersons for theism will be old-Earth
creationists of the Phil Johnson/Hugh Ross ilk.
TG>This is all just to say that I agree with those who insist on
>focusing on the content of the matters being debated and not commit
>genetic fallacies, but also that I agree with those who have been
>saying that you have to do your homework and be competent (expert)
>when dealing with that content.
Good. I'm happy with that. If anyone wishes to criticise my "content"
that's fine by me.
TG>BTW I disagree strongly with the notion that . Peer review
>of grants and papers as well as discussion of controversial opinions
>at seminars are ruthless in their application of those rules. The
>fact that this is so true is what leads scientists to trust the
>primary literature. No doubt, different communities of scientists
>are varying in their degree of ruthlessness, but in general, I
>believe that the principle hold.
The issue was not that scientists don't use "logic", but that they
don't have a monopoly on it. As for myself, while not a scientist, I
do have a university degree and a university post-graduate diploma.
And in my various jobs I have written innumerable applications for
funding grants to some very hard-nosed authorities. I have personally
managed hospital budgets of $12M and staffs of 100 people. My current
position involves the managing of software projects including the
development of requirements analysis specifications. All these
non-scientific activities require a "ruthless" application of the
rules of logic, just to survive in the workaday world.
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) |
----------------------------------------------------------------