On Thu, 13 Feb 1997 00:31:21 -0600, Steve Clark wrote:
>SJ>Unless some sort of detailed mechanism is specified, it is
>vacuous. For example, if "evolution" means simply "change through
>time", as the California Science Framework defines it (Johnson P.E.,
>"Darwin on Trial", 1993, p145), then by definition it is true, even
>tautologous.
SC>Parroting Phil Johnson is not very convincing. All this does is
>provide us with Phil's opinion (an opinion that many of us are
>familiar with), but does not really address the specific issues in a
>direct fashion.
I note that Steve does not deal with the substantive issue, that
"Unless some sort of detailed mechanism is specified, it (evolution)
is vacuous...if `evolution' means simply `change through time'...then
by definition it is true, even tautologous. My quote of Johnson was
actually quite minor (consisting of only *four* words) and the rest
of the words were mine.
I also find it interesting that when an evolutionist quotes
something, that is OK, but when creationist does it that is
"Parroting"! This just shows Steve's TE double standard (and
therefore hidden agenda), as G. K Chesterton wryly observes:
"behind every double standard lies a single hidden agenda"
(Chesterton G. K, "Orthodoxy", 1909 in Moreland J.P. ed., "The
Creation Hypothesis", 1994, p100.
SC>In order to defeat a point of view, you need to offer more than a
>counter argument.
Here Steve does his own bit of "parroting"! What does he think all
my posts on Progressive Creation and now Mediate Creation are -
chopped liver?
SC>How would you know if Johnson's point of view is
>accurate or inaccurate if you don't read alternative opinions?
Again, Steve just "parrots" the standard `priestly' stereotypical
anti-creationist argument, without apparently even thinking about
what he writes. I *do* believe that "Johnson's point of view
is...inaccurate" on some issues and in fact I have privately told him
so. And I own and have read plenty of evolutionist works - that's
where I find the best anti-evolutionist arguments! ;-)
SC>On what basis do you judge Johnson correct and those who disagree
>with him, wrong?
This is a "have you stopped beating your wife?" question. I don't
*always* "judge Johnson correct and those who disagree with him,
wrong". But I might return the question to Steve and ask: "On what
basis do you judge Johnson" *in-"correct and those who disagree with
him", right?
SC>Simply citing authors who have opinions different from what is
>stated on this forum says nothing about the relative strength of the
>different points of view.
Steve doesn't seems to realise that this "forum" is a *debate*, not a
scientific journal or a classroom. It is entirely appropriate in a
debate to cite authors. Evolutionists like Glenn and Brian do it all
the time, but I don't see Steve publicly criticising them.
SC>My suggestion is that you broaden your reading so that you are as
>cognizent of the alternative viewpoint of evolution as you are of
>Johnson's viewpoint. For starters, I suggest that you read Eliot
>Sober's books, Philosophy of Biology (Westview Pres, 1993) and
>Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology (MIT Press, 1995).
I thank Steve for his concern for the broadness of my education, but
I have plently to read at the moment. I will no doubt read Sobers
eventually. But from what I have read, he seems to be under the
usual influence of metaphysical naturalistic ways of thinking. Behe
relates one of Sober's blunders:
"Elliott Sober is more successful with his philosophy, but apparently
he is unaware of relevant developments in science. Although he
thinks Hume was incorrect, Sober is unsympathetic to claims of
intelligent design because he thinks that Darwinian evolution
provides a mechanism for the production of life. He does not base his
conclusion on published models for the gradual production of
irreducibly complex biochemical systems; he does not even consider
the molecular basis of life. Rather, he rejects design and embraces
Darwinism based primarily (and ironically) on an analogy. He
explains in Philosophy of Biology:
`The fact that the mutation-selection process has two parts...is
brought out vividly by Richard Dawkins in his book The Blind
Watchmaker. Imagine a device that is something like a combination
lock. It is composed of a series of disks placed side by side. On the
edge of each disk, the twenty-six letters of the alphabet appear. The
disks can be spun separately so that different sequences of letters
may appear in the viewing window. How many different
combinations of letters may appear in the window? There are 26
possibilities on each disk and 19 disks in all. So there are 26^19
different possible sequences. One of these is
METHLNKSITISAWEASEL.... The probability that
METHINKSITISAWEASEL will appear after all the disks are spun
is 1/26^l9, which is a very small number indeed... But now imagine
that a disk is frozen if it happens to put a letter in the viewing
window that matches the one in the target message. The remaining
disks that do not match the target then are spun at random, and the
process is repeated. What is the chance now that the disks will
display the message METHINKSITISAWEASEL after, say, fifty
repetitions? The answer is that the message can be expected to
appear after a surprisingly small number of generations of the
process.... Variation is generated at random, but selection among
variants is nonrandom.' (Sober E., "Philosophy of Biology",
Westview Press: Boulder CO, 1993, pp37-38).
This analogy is intended to illuminate how complex biological
systems might have been produced. So we are asked to conclude,
based on the spinning-disk analogy, that the cilium evolved step-by-
step, that the initial steps in vision could be produced gradually, and
so forth. The analogy is offered in lieu of actual evidence that these
or other complex systems could have evolved in a Darwinian fashion.
And Sober thinks the analogy is so compelling that, based on it,
Darwinian evolution now wins as the inference to the best
explanation. Dawkins' analogy (which is slightly different in details in
his book versus Sober's rendition), though transparently false, appears
to have captured the imagination of some philosophers of biology.
Besides Sober, Michael Ruse has used a similar example in his book
Darwinism Defended, as has Daniel Dennett in Darwin's Dangerous
Idea. What is wrong with the Dawkins-Sober analogy? Only
everything. It purports to be an analogy for natural selection, which
requires a function to select. But what function is there in a lock
combination that is wrong? Suppose that after spinning the disks for
a while, we had half of the letters right, something like
MDTUIFKQINIOAFERSCL (every other letter is correct). The
analogy asserts that this is an improvement over a random string of
letters, and that it would somehow help us open the combination
lock. But if your life depended on opening a lock that had the
combination METHINKSITISAWEASEL, and you tried
MDTUIFKQINIOAFERSCL, you would be pushing up daisies. If
your reproductive success depended on opening the lock, you would
leave no offspring Ironically for Sober and Dawkins, a lock
combination is a highly specified, irreducibly complex system that
beautifully illustrates why, for such systems, function cannot be
approached gradually.
Evolution, we are told by proponents of the theory, is not goal-
directed. But then, if we start from a random string of letters, why do
we end up with METHINKSITISAWEASEL instead of
MYDARLINGCLEMENTINE or MEBETARZANYOUBEJANE?
As a disk turns, who is deciding which letters to freeze and why?
Instead of an analogy for natural selection acting on random
mutation, the Dawkins-Sober scenario is actually an example of the
very opposite: an intelligent agent directing the construction of an
irreducibly complex system. The agent (Sober here) has the target
phrase (lock combination) in his mind and guides the result in that
direction as surely as a fortune-teller guides a Ouija board. This
hardly seems like a secure foundation upon which to build a
philosophy of biology. The fatal problems with the analogy are not
difficult to see. It was amusingly skewered by Robert Shapiro, a
professor of chemistry at New York University, in his book Origins:
A Skeptic's Guide to the Origin of Life, which was published seven
years before Sober's book. The fact that a distinguished philosopher
overlooks simple logical problems that are easily seen by a chemist
suggests that a sabbatical visit to a biochemistry laboratory might be
in order."
(Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box:", 1996, pp219-221)
>SC>For every quote you post, I could counter with quotes from these
>and other texts.
Actually, I would welcome that. We would then at least get into
discussing what Steve actually believes about creation and evolution.
>SC>So who has a handle on the truth? The one who
>reads selectively, or the one who reads all viewpoints?
For one who portrays himself as something of a philosopher of
science, Steve's argument here is amazingly weak. First, *no-one*
"reads all viewpoints" and *everyone* "reads selectively", including
Steve.
Second, Steve might not have noticed, but I am not his typical
creationist, so his usual stereotypical anti-creationist arguments
are wide of the mark. I *am* reading widely and I *have* modified my
views in the light of the evidence, much of which comes from reading
evolutionist writings. I now accept common ancestry including man
from animals, and would be prepared to accept an even greater role in
natural processes if the evidence supports it.
In fact, I would like to know how "selectively" Steve himself reads?
He rarely enters into any *detailed* arguments, either for evolution
or against creation. In fact he admitted recently that he was "not
an expert in the scientific claims of evolution and...stayed away
from discussions on this level". Moreover he also admitted that he
knew "little about geology and theology and have not ventured into
those discussions either":
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 09:42:40 -0600
To: evolution@calvin.edu
From: Steve Clark <ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: irreducible complexity
[...]
I've said this before, but it bears repeating. I am not an expert in the
scientific claims of evolution and I have stayed away from discussions on
this level. Similarly, I know little about geology and theology and have
not ventured into those discussions either. On occasion, I have contributed
what I know about molecular genetics and immunology, areas in which I have
expertise. But mostly my participation has been in the area of philosophy
of science, a of mine. Therefore, I earlier commented on an
underlying philosophical presupposition of the irreducible complexity
argument against evolution
------------------------------------------------------------
Since Steve is making the claim that I read "selectively" (and by
implication that he reads non-"selectively"), perhaps he can list
publicly on this Reflector, how many: 1. creationist; and 2.
evolutionist books *he* has read in the last year?
God bless.
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------