SC>In the absence of a good alternative, evolution remains the
>hypothesis that is tested whether it is right or wrong.
JB>This is the game, isn't it? If you get to be the one who defines
>what is a "good alternative," you can leave evolution as the ONLY
>hypothesis, "whether it is right or wrong." [!]
Yes. It's a bit like Nero saying to the early Christians "you can
have any religion you like as long as I'm its God"! The same way of
thinking will ensure that naturalism will *always* be in control,
even if it's wrong.
JB>This is what theistic realism shakes its head at. It is, at
>heart, the sort of metaphysical leap you appear to eschew. I've
>not seen a better example of the sort of bias Johnson writes about
>in "Reason in the Balance" than the above statement. Where does it
>say the definition of what is real and what can be considered comes
>out of Madison, WI? Where have you found the tablets which say
>reality can only be defined in materialist terms? (That would leave
>you to wonder who wrote the tablets, but of course that question
>cannot be asked.
Romans 1 tells us "who wrote the tablets"! :-)
JB>There is always a naturalistic hypothesis--e.g., the blowing of
>the winds, the tap dancing of beetles--which one can test, whether
>it is right or wrong.)
>JB>How long, Glenn? Until the data reaches a conclusory peak.
>That's how science works
>SC>This is not correct. Science works by testing hypotheses.
Actually "*this* is not correct". "Science works by testing"
*only naturalistic* "hypotheses". Therefore, in the case of
*origins* science dogmatically refuses to consider even the
possibility that an Intelligent Designer may have created the
universe, life and life's complex designs.
[...]
On Fri, 06 Dec 1996 15:58:00 -0600, Steve Clark wrote:
[...]
SC>In order to get science (in this case evolutionists) to use
>accept and give up old, inadequate hypotheses requires that
>ANOTHER, BETTER HYPOTHESIS come along. Simply pointing to data that
>are inconsistent for a given hypothesis is not sufficient to induce
>the Kuhnian-type of paradigm shift. Also, pointing out that
>certain experiments have not been performed is also not sufficient
>to cause a paradigm shift.
Steve argument implicitly assumes we are in a period of what Kuhn
called "normal science", whereas those of us who don't subscribe to
his Darwinist evolutionary paradigm think there is plenty of
evidence that Darwinism is in a state of Kuhnian crisis. Here is an
excerpt from Kuhn's obituary which summarised his position:
"Dr. Kuhn, a professor of philosophy and history of science at
M.I.T. from 1979 to 1983...was...best known for `The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions.' His thesis was that science was not a
steady, cumulative acquisition of knowledge. Instead, he wrote, it
is `a series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually
violent revolutions.' And in those revolutions, he wrote, `one
conceptual world view is replaced by another.' ...Professor Kuhn
argued in the book that the typical scientist was not an objective,
free thinker and skeptic. Rather, he was a somewhat conservative
individual who accepted what he was taught and applied his knowledge
to solving the problems that came before him. In so doing,
Professor Kuhn maintained, these scientists accepted a paradigm, an
archetypal solution to a problem, like Ptolemy's theory that the Sun
revolves around the Earth. Generally conservative, scientists would
tend to solve problems in ways that extended the scope of the
paradigm. In such periods, he maintained, scientists tend to resist
research that might signal the development of a new paradigm, like
the work of the astronomer Aristarchus, who theorized in the third
century B.C. that the planets revolve around the Sun. But,
Professor Kuhn said, situations arose that the paradigm could not
account for or that contradicted it. And then, he said, a
revolutionary would appear, a Lavoisier or an Einstein, often a
young scientist not indoctrinated in the accepted theories, and
sweep the old paradigm away. These revolutions, he said, came only
after long periods of tradition-bound normal science. `Frameworks
must be lived with and explored before they can be broken,"
Professor Kuhn said. The new paradigm cannot build on the one that
precedes it, he maintained. It can only supplant it. The two, he
said, were `incommensurable.'..." (Van Gelder, "Thomas Kuhn, 73;
Devised Science Paradigm [Obituary]", The New York Times, June 19,
1996, p. B7)
It seems to us creationists that "evolutionists" already *are* in
the process of giving up their "old, inadequate hypothesis", namely
Neo-Darwinism. It's hard to find anyone who actually believes in
Neo-Darwinism anymore. Some very prominent biologists like Grasse,
Gould, Patterson and Margulis have publicly disavowed it. Others
are dabbling in other non-Darwinist mechanisms like complexity
theory. Those, like Dawkins, who still do believe in Neo-Darwinism
are called "ultra-Darwinists", but as Berlinski points out, those who
use that label have nothing but "change" to put in its place:
"there is a feeling both among biologists and the public that the
intellectual foundations of biology may be about to crack. Many
biologists are unhappy with what is sometimes called ultra-
Darwinism; they imagine that they can camouflage their distress by
attaching their allegiance to a version of evolution that has been
emptied of controversy by being evacuated of content. It is by
means of this tactic, Mr. Bethell observes, that evolution has
become a sonorous synonym for change." (Berlinski D., "Denying
Darwin: David Berlinski and Critics", Commentary, September 1996,
p38)
SC>Intelligent design does not provide any testable hypothesis
>regarding HOW COMPLEX STRUCTURES CAME INTO EXISTENCE.
If this is meant in a strong sense, then the same criticism applies
equally to evolution. As Mike Behe points out, Darwinists do not
even attempt to explain "how complex structures came into existence"
at the molecular level. It might be OK at explaining change once
such complex structures are already in existence, but it doesn't
explain how they "came into existence" in the first place.
Patterson claimed that evolution today is in an analogous position
to pre-Darwinian creationists:
"...Gillespie's book, Charles Darwin and the Problem of
Creation...is a historian's attempt explain the amount of space
that Darwin gave to combating the creationist arguments....From my
new viewpoint, some of Gillespie's comments on pre-Darwinian
creationism seem to be strikingly apt...Here is one quote from
Gillespie's book:
`The old scientific epic scene has sanctioned, or so it appears from
the new perspective, a pseudo-paradigm that was not a research
governing theory. This is hard to explain with only verbal, but an anti-
theory, a void that had the function of knowledge but as naturalists
increasingly came to feel conveyed none.'
Here Gillespie is characterising the old pre-Darwinian creationist
paradigm. But I feel that what he says could just as well be
applied to evolutionary theory today...Gillespie also said that
creationism is an anti-theory, a void that has the function of
knowledge but conveying none. Well what about evolution? It
certainly has the function of knowledge but does it convey any?
Well we are back to the question that I've been putting to people.
`Is there any one thing you can tell me about evolution?" The
absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does
not convey any knowledge or if so, I haven't yet heard of it.' "
(Patterson C., "Evolutionism and Creationism", Transcript of Address
at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, November 5,
1981, p2)
SC>I'll paraphrase Jim's words here and say that "The LACK is in
>the...explanation for the machinery." I bet that there is not a
>single paper in any of the journals Behe scrutinized that describes
>HOW intelligent design could explain HOW complex structures arose.
Indeed, within a materialistic-naturalistic paradigm, "Intelligent
design" cannot even exist! The first step thereforfe for ID
theorists is to show that the materialistic-naturalistic paradigm is
inadequate, and then design would be at least possible. IMHO the
acceptance of design would follow automatically, once the
materialistic-naturalistic mental block is removed. All non-IDs
without exception already recognise design. Here is a quote I found
reading sociobiologist E.O. Wilson:
"Allosteric control is so elegant that it appears to have been
DESIGNED BY A SYSTEMS ANALYST. In fact it is one of the most
intellectually satisfying examples of the tight logic that can arise
by the process of natural selection." (Wilson E.O., et al., "Life
on Earth", Sinauer Associates: Sunderland MA, 1973, p165. My
emphasis).
Of course, no evidence is given to show that natural selection
did (or even could) craft such "elegant" biomolecular control
systems. They are just proclamations. But the point is that it is
unnecessary to prove design - Darwinists are already well aware of
it - they just call it "apparent" design!
SC>The problem here is two fold. 1) design is not a mechanistic
>hypothesis. Rather it is a metaphysical world-view.
Agreed that "design is not a mechanistic hypothesis". Who ever
claimed it was?
But I disagree that "design...is a metaphysical world-view". The
"metaphysical world-view" is *Theism*, ie. that there is a Designer.
"[D]esign" is a *consequence* that flows from that theistic
"metaphysical world-view".
SC>2) Design is not inconsistent with evolution, because evolution,
>properly considered, is a mechanistic hypothesis and not a
>metaphysical world-view. An omnipotent designer could create via
>evolution. This is the crux of the EC position.
The point is that if "An omnipotent designer" did "create via
evolution", then it is not really evolution - it is *creation*, and
the proper words to use are Biblical words like "create", "make",
"fashion", etc. The essential meaning of "evolution" is "unrol",
ie. development from *within*. The essence of creation is
development from *without*.
"Creation" and "evolution" are therefore fundamentally antithetical
concepts. Attempts to link the two by a mere verbal conjunction,
eg. "Evolutionary Creation", or "Theistic Evolution", is
oxymoronic. What God has put asunder, let no man join!
JB>But the theory of evolution is nowhere near the rocks in the data
>game. Good scientists will adopt "wait and see."
SC>You can't do science without an hypothesis to test. In the
>absence of a good alternative, evolution remains the hypothesis
>that is tested whether it is right or wrong.
There is no "hypothesis" called "evolution" that is "tested". No
one even can define what "evolution" is, let alone test it. Over
forty years ago Ramm wrote:
'Although Standen writes popularly he nonetheless has put his finger
on two of the sorest points of evolutionary theory, showing its
possible ultimate embarrassment with facts. (i) He correctly
observes that there is the vague theory and the precise theory. The
vague theory is the belief of scientists that evolution has
occurred. The precise theory is the hypothesis as to how evolution
actually works. There is no known satisfactory and clearly
demonstrated precise theory of evolution. If evolution is to "stick"
as a scientific theory it must establish precise theory. In spite of
the fact that as yet no precise theory is forthcoming, the
evolutionists have unbounded faith in the vague theory. This is not
science at its best..." (Ramm B. "The Christian View of Science and
Scripture", Paternoster: London, 1955, p189)
"Evolution" (in this "vague" sense) is just assumed to be a *fact*
("as well established as the fact that the earth revolves around the
sun" - Gould, 1987), and there is no need to test a fact. I have a
tape of Phil Johnson debating Eugenie Scott and she actually says
this.
SC>Either way, the information gained from testing the hypothesis
>will, sooner or later, likely provide us with reason to more fully
>embrace it or to replace it with an alternative. This is not done
>by a "wait and see" approach.
Agreed. Creationists are not really adopting a "`wait and see'
approach" (at least not in the same sense that Jim meant it). With
the limited resources at their disposal they are waging a guerilla
war, directing their fire at the weak points. By picking up on
evolutionists contradictions and magnifying them, they are acting as
catalysts assisting the process of Darwinism's own self-destruction:
"Biologists often affirm that as members of the scientific community
they positively welcome criticism. Nonsense. Like everyone else,
biologists loathe criticism and arrange their lives so as to avoid
it. Criticism has nonetheless seeped into their souls, the process
of doubt a curiously Darwinian one in which individual biologists
entertain minor reservations about their theory without ever
recognizing the degree to which these doubts mount up to a
substantial deficit. Creationism, so often the target of their
indignation, is the least of their worries. For many years,
biologists have succeeded in keeping skepticism on the circumference
of evolutionary thought, where paleontologists, taxonomists, and
philosophers linger. But the burning fringe of criticism is now
contracting, coming ever closer to the heart of Darwin's doctrine."
(Berlinski D., "The Deniable Darwin", Commentary, June 1996, p28)
On Fri, 6 Dec 1996 17:34:21 -0500, Bill Hamilton wrote:
[...]
BH>I suspect that YEC critics of science tend to think of science as
>an exercise in logic. Either a proposition is true or it isn't. If
>it isn't, then of course no one would want to base further
>hypotheses on it. But the situation in science is more complex than
>that.
Maybe "YEC critics of science" think this but other creationists
don't. There's also a little straw man here. Even "YECs" are not
usually "critics of *science*". They are "critics" mainly of one
area of "science", namely Neo-Darwinist macroevolution.
BH>Evolution for example is not one single hypothesis. It's a
>fairly complex model of how evolutionists believe genetic changes
>and environmental stimuli interact to produce change. It includes
>many principles, hypotheses, etc. Is it perfect? No, because it is
>a partial model representing our current state of understanding.
And yet all the while, we are told that this "partial model
representing our current state of understanding" is a "fact, fact,
FACT":
"Evolution is a fact, fact, FACT!" (his emphasis). (Ruse M.,
"Darwinism Defended", Addison-Wesley: London, 1982, p58, in
(Bird W. R., "The Origin of Species Revisited", Vol. II, Regency:
Nashville, 1991, p128)
Sorry Bill, but this is just double-talk, which I doubt if even you
believe. :-) As Johnson says, when pressure is put on the theory, we
are told something like "evolution...is only a partial model
representing our current state of understanding", etc. But when the
coast is clear, Darwinists bounce back claiming it is a "fact, fact,
FACT!":
"Manipulation of the terminology also allows natural selection to
appear and disappear on command. When unfriendly critics are absent,
Darwinists can just assume the creative power of natural selection
and employ it to explain whatever change or lack of change has been
observed. When critics appear and demand empirical confirmation,
Darwinists can avoid the test by responding that scientists are
discovering alternative mechanisms, particularly at the molecular
level, which relegate selection to a less important role. The fact
of evolution therefore remains unquestioned, even if there is a
certain amount of healthy debate about the theory. Once the critics
have been distracted, the Blind Watchmaker can reenter by the back
door. Darwinists will explain that no biologist doubts the
Importance of Darwinian selection, because nothing else was available
to shape the adaptive features of the phenotypes." (Johnson P.E.,
"Darwin on Trial", InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove Ill., Second
Edition, 1993, pp153-154).
BH>How will the model be improved and incorrect aspects of it
>corrected? By additional experiment and observation. How will we
>determine which experiments to pursue? The model's predictions
>will tell us where experimental work is needed to either increase
>our confidence in the model or point out where it is weak or
>incorrect. So ashcanning a model because of some anomalous facts
>would cripple our ability to proceed with advancing our
>understanding.
What "predictions" are those exactly? And what happens if the
"predictions' fail? Darwinism simply accommodates the
failures into its system:
"Once asked, such questions tend to multiply like party guests. If
evolutionary theory cannot answer them, what, then, is its use? Why
is the pitcher plant carnivorous, but not the thorn bush, and why
does the Pacific salmon require fresh water to spawn, but not the
Chilean sea bass? Why has the British thrush learned to hammer
snails upon rocks, but not the British blackbird, which often starves
to death in the midst of plenty? Why did the firefly discover
bioluminescence, but not the wasp or the warrior ant; why do the bees
do their dance, but not the spider or the flies; and why are women,
but not cats, born without the sleek tails that would make them even
more alluring than they already are? Why? Yes, why? The question,
simple, clear, intellectually respectable, was put to the Nobel
laureate George Wald. `Various organisms try various things,' he
finally answered, his words functioning as a verbal shrug, `they keep
what works and discard the rest.' But suppose the manifold of life
were to be given a good solid yank, so that the Chilean sea bass but
not the Pacific salmon required fresh water to spawn, or that ants
but not fireflies flickered enticingly at twilight, or that women but
not cats were born with lush tails. What then? An inversion of
life's fundamental facts would, I suspect, present evolutionary
biologists with few difficulties. Various organisms try various
things. This idea is adapted to any contingency whatsoever, an
interesting example of a Darwinian mechanism in the development of
Darwinian thought itself." (Berlinski D., "The Deniable Darwin",
Commentary, June 1996, pp21-22)
Happy New Year!
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------