On Mon, 14 Apr 1997 11:12:18 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
[...]
>SJ>Calling Johnson a "lawyer" is like calling Charles Darwin a
>theologian (Darwin's only academic qualification was in theology).
>Johnson is a senior Professor of Law at Berkeley University and his
>specialty is analysing the logic of arguments:..."Darwin on Trial",
>1993, pp13-14). I would have thought that "a specialty in analyzing
>the logic of arguments and identifying the assumptions that lie
>behind those arguments" is a *very* relevant qualification in
>assessing the evidence and arguments for Darwinism.
PM>That depends on the person's ability to understand the assumptions
>behind the arguments.
That indeed is Johnson's specialty!
PM>Darwin did not apply theology to explain the vaste evidence of
>evolution but used a scientific approach.
Have you ever read The Origin of Species, Pim? It drips with
"theology" - there are literally *dozens* (if not hundreds) of
references to either "God", "the Creator", and "creation". In fact,
Darwin actually gave his number one reason for writing it, as
theological, namely to overthrow the current Christian doctrine of
separate creations:
"...I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I had two
distinct objects in view; firstly, to shew that species had not been
separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the
chief agent of change...Some of those who admit the principle of
evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget, when
criticising my book, that I had the above two objects in view; hence
if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I
am very far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which
is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service
in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations" (Darwin C..,
"The Descent of Man", 1871, Modern Library, pp441-442)
PM>You wrote:
SJ>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", 1993, pp13-14)
PM>Does this not mean that Johnson in his own logic is just another
>layman?
He cheerfully admits he is. But he points out that so is almost
everyone else in the subject of Creation v Evolution.
PM>====================================================
>DARWIN_ON_TRIAL PE_JOHNSON CRITIQUE ELSBERRY
>Copyright 1992 by Wesley R. Elsberry
>Phillip E. Johnson's "Darwin On Trial"
>
>This 1991 book has made quite a splash in the summer of 1992. With
>the arguably vituperative review given by Stephen Jay Gould in the
>July 1992 issue of Scientific American, a controversy now rages not
>only over the topic of evolution versus pseudoscientific nonsense, but
>also over how to engage those who espouse that pseudoscientific
>nonsense.
>
>But before we proceed to the dissection of the corpus of errors which
>Johnson has presented to us, let us look at the cover text for "Darwin
>On Trial".
>
>[Begin quote]
>
>Darwin On Trial
>
>Phillip E. Johnson
>
>Darwin's theory of evolution is accepted by most educated Americans as
>simple fact. This easy acceptance, however, hides from us the many
>ways in which evolution -as an idea- shapes our thinking about a great
>many things.
The above blurb does not appear on my first and second editions of
Darwin on Trial. Besides, blurbs are written by the *publisher*, not
by the author.
PM>[Huh? There has been nothing "easy" about getting people to accept
>evolutionary mechanism theories (EMTs), unless they have seen the
>evidence of biological research. Additionally, the nice thing about
>EMTs is that they do allow us to recognize relationships which might
>have otherwise escaped our notice. EMTs are perception heightening,
>not the opposite as Johnson asserts. -- WRE]
The blurb says nothing about "evolutionary mechanism theories". It is
addressing "evolution -as an idea".
PM>What if this idea is wrong?
>
>[Well, then, we can be certain that science will abandon it as
>science has done with other theories which have not withstood the
>tests and findings of later research. So far, though, most EMTs have
>done admirably well. -- WRE]
Again, the blurb does not mention "EMTs". It is discussing the "idea"
of "evolution".
PM>That is, what if it turned out that the evidence for Darwin's
>theory is in tatters and science is hanging on to it only because no
>other theory is in prospect?
>
>[While this might be the premise for an SF novel, Johnson does nothing
>to demonstrate that this actually holds. -- WRE]
On the contrary Johnson does just that!
PM>What if "evolution" is just a word that covers up scientific
>ignorance of how the wonders of the living world could have been
>created?
>
>[Then I guess that it holds an analogous position to the word
>"gravity" covering up the scientific ignorance of how clumps of matter
>attract one another. -- WRE]
If Elseberry wants to claim that "evolution" is a "word" that is
"covering up...scientific ignorance", "analogous...to the word
`gravity'" that's fine by me!
PM>Berkely law professor Phillip Johnson looks at the evidence for
>Darwinistic evolution the way a lawyer would -- with a cold
>dispassionate eye for logic and proof.
>
>[ROFL -- lawyers take an adversarial position and run with it.
So, even if that generalisation was true, what's wrong with that? Is
"evolution" some sort of sacred cow that cannot be attacked?
PM>Johsnon does look at the topic in the manner of a trial lawyer,
>but the preceding description bears no relation to his approach in
>"Darwin On Trial". One wonders if another book was written that
>actually has the "cold and dispassionate" analysis. While "proof"
>may be an operative concept in the legal field, it is not part of
>the scientific method. -- WRE]
This is just playing with shifting definitions of the word "proof".
While *absolute* "proof" is not possible in science, just as it is
not possible in law either, the same ideas of *relative* "proof on
the balance of probability" is found in both the law and science.
PM>His discovery is that scientists have put the cart before the
>horse.
>[Interesting use of the word "discovery" there -- I wonder if Norman
>MacBeth, author of the 1971 book "Darwin Retried", would agree with
>the usage. Various and sundry other authors have announced this
>selfsame "discovery", and none of them has yet documented that their
>discovery actually exists. -- WRE]
Johnson does not claim any "discovery" - this is the publisher's
blurb. In one of his tapes I have, Johnson makes it quite plain that
much of his critique is not his original "discovery".
PM>They prematurely accepted Darwin's theory as fact and have been
>scrambling to find evidence for it -- mostly unsuccessfully.
>
>[This is demonstrative of either massive ignorance or massive chutzpah
>on Johnson's part. Even the most churlish of SciCre mavens have
>conceded the existence and operation of what they term
>"microevolution" by means of natural selection.
Elseberry demonstrates "massive ignorance" of Johnson's writings!
Johnson nowhere denies "the existence and operation of...
`microevolution" by means of natural selection":
In Darwin on Trial I examined the evidence for the blind watchmaker
thesis and found it wholly unsatisfactory to persuade an unbiased
mind that biological creation occurred in the way Darwinists say it
did. That is not to say that all the claims that come under the
label "evolution" are false. There is no question that evolution of
the Darwinian kind occurs, in the sense that types of living
organisms have a certain capacity for variation. This is a process
commonly called microevolution, and it accounts for such things as
the variant characteristics of plants and animals that have been
transported to an isolated island environment." (Johnson P.E.,
"Reason in the Balance", 1995, p15)
What Johnson does deny is that "natural selection" is adequate to
explain the major features of evolution, eg "the basic body plans"
and "the existence of complex organs":
"The problem is that there is no evidence for, and very much evidence
against, the Darwinian assumption that some similar process of
step-by-step gradual change produced the basic body plans of plants
and animals in the first place or brought about the existence of
complex organs like wings and eyes. Conceivably there was some
mysterious process by which later groups grew out of earlier ones,
but if so, we know very little about it." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in
the Balance", 1995, p15)
PM>Since "natural selection" is "Darwin's theory", it would seem
>that acceptance of the evidence is nearly universal, even among
>those most critical of the theory. -- WRE]
Obviously "Darwin's theory" is shorthand for Darwin's wider claim to
explain the development of the *whole* living world, not just
"microevolution". As Denton points out, there are actually *two*
Darwin's theories, a Special and a General Theory:
"In his book Darwin is actually presenting two related but quite
distinct theories. The first, which has sometimes been called the
"special theory", is relatively conservative and restricted in scope
and merely proposes that new races and species arise in nature by the
agency of natural selection...The second theory, which is often
called the "general theory", is far more radical. It makes the claim
that the "special theory" applies universally and hence that the
appearance of all the manifold diversity of life on Earth can be
explained by a simple extrapolation of the processes which bring
about relatively trivial changes such as those seen on the Galapagos
Islands. This "general theory" is what most people think of when
they refer to evolution theory." (Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory
in Crisis", 1985, p44)
It is not Darwin's Special Theory, but his *General Theory* that is
in dispute:
"Yet, despite the success of his special theory, despite the reality
of microevolution, not all biologists have shared Darwin's confidence
and accepted that the major divisions in nature could have been
crossed by the same simple sorts of processes....Rensch, was able to
provide a long list of leading authorities who have been inclined to
the view that macroevolution cannot be explained in terms of
microevolutionary processes, or any other currently known mechanisms.
These dissenters cannot be dismissed as cranks, creationists, or
vitalists, for among their ranks are many first rate biologists...A
well-informed minority, however, including such outstanding
authorities as the geneticist Goldschmidt, the paleontologist
Schindewolf, and the zoologists Jeannel, Cuenot, and Cannon [one
could add Grasse, Gould, Eldredge, Stanley --- SJ] maintained...that
neither evolution within species nor geographic speciation could
explain the phenomena of "macroevolution", or, as it is better
called, transpecific evolution. These authors contended that the
origin of new "types" and of new organs could not be explained by the
known facts of genetics and systematics." (Denton M., "Evolution: A
Theory in Crisis", 1985, pp86-87)
Denton concludes:
"Since 1859, a vast amount of evidence has accumulated which has
thoroughly substantiated Darwin's views as far as microevolutionary
phenomena are concerned. Evolution by natural selection has been
directly observed in nature, and it is beyond any reasonable doubt
that new reproductively isolated populations - species - do in fact
arise from pre-existing species. Although some of the details of the
process are still controversial, and certain aspects of the modern
view of speciation differ slightly from Darwin's, it is clear that
the process involves a gradual accumulation of small genetic changes
guided mainly by natural selection. But while his special theory has
been confirmed, its general application, the grand claim that, in
Mayr's words:
`...all evolution is due to the accumulation of small genetic
changes guided by natural selection and that transpecific
evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of
the events which take place within population and species...'
(Mayr E., "Animal Species and Evolution", 1963, p586)
remains as unsubstantiated as it was one hundred and twenty years
ago." (Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", 1985, p344)
PM>As the evidentiary difficulties have piled up, they have clung to
>the theory out of fear of encouraging religious fundamentalism, and
>in the process have turned belief in Darwinism into their own
>religion.
>
>[As I said earlier, this may make great SF, but it bears no relation
>to the reality that you or I actually live in. There are no
>"evidentiary difficulties" of the extent that Johnson implies
No doubt to a convinced Darwinist, "There are no `evidentiary
difficulties'". This is because Darwinism is so flexible it can
accommodate itself to almost any difficulty:
"Evolutionary theory is a smorgasbord: a vast buffet of disjointed
and conflicting mechanisms waiting to be chosen by the theorist. For
any given question, the theorist invokes only those mechanisms that
look most satisfying. Yet, the next question elicits a different
response, with other mechanisms invoked and neglected. Evolutionary
theory has no coherent structure. It is amorphous. It is malleable
and can readily adjust to disparate patterns of data. Evolution
accommodates data like fog accommodates landscape." (ReMine W.J.,
"The Biotic Message", 1993, p24)
But to those of us who have no metaphysical need to believe in a
`blind watchmaker' there are plenty of "difficulties"
PM>, and natural selection has withstood over a hundred years of
>implacable testing by determined skeptics.
See above. Johnson does not deny "natural selection". In fact I doubt
if anyone ever did. So self-evidently true was it that it was not
even empirically tested until 1959 - 100 years after Darwin's Origin
of Species:
"Everyone who studies evolution knows that Kettlewell's peppered moth
experiment is the classic demonstration of the power of natural
selection and that Darwinists had to wait almost a century to see
even this modest confirmation of their central doctrine" (Johnson
P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, p27)
PM>To those who have seen and understood the evidence, no "belief"
>in natural selection or other EMTs is necessary, merely an
>acknowledgement of the scientific validity of the findings. -- WRE]
Elseberry's harping on about "natural selection" shows he has
completely missed the point. And no one doubts "the scientific
validity of the findings" - most of them are valid as far as they go.
It's just that they don't confirm Darwin's `blind watchmaker' thesis,
and in fact, in the case of the fossil record, positively
disconfirm it:
"And its not simply that there must be long line of descent from each
Cambrian animal back to its hypothetical single-cell ancestor.
Because Darwinism is assumed to be a purposeless, undirected process,
it could not proceed from a starting point to a destination. The
expectation is that instead of lines of descent you would have a
thick bush with branches going off on each side and to failing and
extinct organs. And so one has to imagine a whole *forest* of
intermediates between the hypothetical animals and each of the later
groups that emerges. As Darwin himself put it, if Darwinism is true
the Precambrian world must have `swarmed with living creatures' many
of them ancestral to the Cambrian animals." (Johnson P.E., "The
Blind Watchmaker Thesis", Trinity Founders Lectures, 1992)
Without the decisive evidence of step-by-step transformation in the
fossil record, Darwinism's `blind watchmaker' thesis, is just one of
a number of possible theories, including creation:
"The absence of intermediate forms essentially emptied all Darwin's
macroevolutionary claims of any empirical basis. Without
intermediates, not only was he unable to prove decisively that
organisms had indeed evolved gradually as a result of simple random
processes such as natural selection, but he had no way of
distinguishing empirically between his own evolutionary model of
nature and its non-evolutionary rivals, whether they were basically
naturalistic, postulating sudden but natural macromutations as a
basic mode of change, or frankly supernatural, invoking the
intervention of God." (Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis",
1985, pp56-57).
In fact, the sudden appearance and stasis, which Gould confirms is
the overwhelmingly pervasive feature of the fossil record:
"The history of most fossil species includes two features
particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most
species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on
earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as
when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and
directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a
species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of
its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed." (Gould
S.J, "The Panda's Thumb", 1980, pp150-151).
is *more* consistent with creation than `blind watchmaker' evolution.
PM>Darwinism, Johnson argues, has become another kind of
>fundamentalism --merely dressed up in a laboratory smock and with a
>fierce and condescending refusal to listen to critics.
>
>[Nonsense. Biologists listen to each other with great regularity.
>However, I do not not consider someone to be a critic unless they
>demonstrate some knowledge of the domain which they critique.
Far from refuting Johnson's point about a "condescending refusal to
listen to critics", Elseberry resoundingly confirms it! The easiest
way for the Darwinist fundamentalist priesthood to deal with
"critics" is to gather their priestly robes (in this case "laboratory
smocks") and declare the "critics" are non-"critics"!
Johnson has debated with leading Darwinists including Gould,
Eldredge, Provine, Futuyma, and Ruse. and it is difficult to see how
he could have done that with no "knowledge of the domain"! In fact,
Nobel prizewinning physicist has described Johnson as "the most
respectable academic critic of evolution":
"In his 1992 book Dreams of a Final Theory, Steven described me as
currently "the most respectable academic critic of evolution."
(Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, p157)
BTW, as Johnson points out, this is interesting that a non-scientist
has this honour:
"I am not sure that rates as much of a compliment in Weinberg's scale
of values, but I am more interested in the description than the
honor. Just what is a "critic of evolution," and why, in an academic
world in which criticism of established opinion is valued so highly,
is criticism of evolution so unusual?" (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
Trial", 1993, p157)
PM>SciCre-ists and their fellow travelers in general fall well short
>of being "critics" of evolutionary mechanism theories. Is the
>contumely displayed for those who chose to represent themselves in
>court an example of lawyers being condescending? Somehow, I think
>it might be difficult to get a lawyer to agree with that
>characterization. -- >WRE]
So what if "lawyers" are "condescending"? Most of them are no doubt
non-theists and evolutionists. In one of his tapes, Johnson agreed
with a talk-back caller that many lawyers were profession was
"arrogant".
PM>"Darwin On Trial" is a cogent and stunning tour de force that
>not only rattles the cages of conventional wisdom, but could provide
>the basis for a fundamental change in the way educated Americans
>regard themselves, their origins, and their fate.
>
>[I will withhold comment on this sentence for the moment. -- WRE]
PM>Professor Phillip Johnson is a graduate of Harvard and the
>University of Chicago. He was a law clerk for Chief Justice Earl
>Warren of the United States Supreme Court, and has taught law for
>over twenty years at the University of California at Berkeley. He
>took up the study of Darwinism because he saw that the books
>defending the theory were dogmatic and unconvincing.
<
>[I find this explanation unconvincing. My own conjecture is that
>Johnson finds "evolution" personally distasteful, and has gone on from
>there. -- WRE]
There is no evidence for Elsberry's "conjecture". I have several of
Johnson's tapes where he explains that he was on sabattical leave in
England and he idly picked up Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker. He was
struck by how weak Dawkins' arguments were, so he started reading
more evolutionists books and found them riddled with logical flaws.
This story rings true, because if Johnson was "personally"
anti-evolution, as a Berkeley University Professor, he would hardly
have waited till he got to England to read his first evolutionist
book!
PM>He wrote this book to give Americans the information they need to
>make up their own minds.
>
>[I find that exceedingly doubtful. Johnson's book is ragingly
>partisan. Even Francis Hitching's "The Neck of the Giraffe: Where
>Darwin Went Wrong" is more even-handed than Johnson's book. -- WRE]
So "Johnson's book is...partisan" (I don't agree about the "ragingly"
bit). So what? Most (if not all) Darwinists books are "partisan"
too. A good example is Dawkins:
"Explaining is a difficult art. You can explain something so that
your reader understands the words; and you can explain something so
that the reader feels it in the marrow of his bones. To do the
latter, it sometimes isn't enough to lay the evidence before the
reader in a dispassionate way. You have to become an advocate and
use the tricks of the advocate's trade. This book is not a
dispassionate scientific treatise....Far from being dispassionate, it
has to be confessed that in parts this book is written with a passion
which, in a professional scientific journal, might excite comment.
Certainly it seeks to inform, but it also seeks to persuade and even
- one can specify aims without presumption - to inspire." (Dawkins
R., "The Blind Watchmaker", 1991, ppxiv)
[continued]
Regards.
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------