On Mon, 14 Apr 1997 11:12:18 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
[continued]
PM>[Now for some of the blurbs.]
>
>"'Darwin On Trial' is unquestionably the best critique of Darwinism I
>have ever read. Professor Johnson combines a broad knowledge of
>biology with the incisive logic of a leading legal scholar to deliver
>a brilliant and devastating attack on the whole edifice of Darwinian
>belief. There is no doubt that this book will prove a severe
>embarrassment to the Darwinian establishment."
>
>[It is certainly an embarrassment to those of us who must grudgingly
>admit being citizens of the same nation as Johnson, an embarrassment
>not shared by the author of the blurb. -- WRE]
This is interesting. Johnson has criticised a supposedly scientific
theory called Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and it causes Elsberry to
be embarrassed at being a "citizen of the same nation as Johnson"!
Clearly Darwinism is functioning as far more than a scientific theory
for Elsberry - it sounds like it is his religion.
PM>Dr. Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist and author of "Evolution:
>A Theory in Crisis".
>
>[Hey, just because someone is composed of molecules and happens to be
>involved in the life sciences does not make that person a molecular
>biologist. Several people have attempted literature searches for Dr.
>Michael Denton, and have come up with no molecular biology related
>journal articles. The lack of any publication record in the topic
>certainly diminishes the credibility of Denton's claims of molecular
>biology expertise. Dr. Denton appears to be, however, a medical
>doctor with a publication record in the medical journals of the South
>Pacific. -- WRE]
This is the usual Darwinist tactic of trying to discredit any critic
of evolution, rather than having to face up to the substance of his
argument. It is this type of argumentation that first convinced me
that Darwinists must have something to hide.
Denton makes no claim to any particular "molecular biology
expertise", so whether he has published any "molecular biology
related journal articles" is beside the point. He is a medical
doctor and a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Otago in New
Zealand. I believe his specialty is genetic diseases of the eye.
PM>"'Darwin On Trial' shows just how Darwinian evolution has become
>an idol of the contemporary tribe, and how deeply philosophical and
>religious ideas enter into its status as part of the intellectual
>orthodoxy of our day."
>
>Alvin Plantinga, Professor of Philosophy Notre Dame University
>
>[Ever notice how fundamentalists are so contemptuous of philosophers,
>unless they happen to agree with the fundamentalist? -- WRE]
There is a bit of confusion here on Elsberry's part. Neither
Plantinga nor Johnson are "fundamentalists". Johnson in particular
is not a young-Earth creationist, nor a Biblical literalist.
PM>"Darwin's theory of evolution is one of the great intellectual
>superstitions of modern times. It does the soul good to see a
>Berkeley professor attack it."
>
>Tom Bethell, The Hoover Institution
>
>[Pretty strong words coming from a fellow who apparently cannot
>distinguish between what natural selection is and a concise
>misstatement of natural selection. Bethell's "Harper's" article on
>this topic is a screamer. -- WRE]
I have not read Bethel's famous Harpers article, but I have seen
some quotes from it:
"Darwin proposed no criterion of fitness other than that of survival
itself.... [I]t follows that 'the survival of the fittest' is not a
testable theory, but a tautology. Which one survives? The fittest.
Who are they? Those that survive." (Bethell T., " Darwin's Mistake",
Harper's Magazine, Feb. 1976, at 70, 72, in Bird W.R., "The Origin
of Species Revisited", 1991, Vol. II, p147)
Unlike Elsberry, although he disagreed with Bethell, Gould admitted
that Bethell had a point:
"Although I will try to refute Bethell, I also deplore the
unwillingness of scientists to explore seriously the logical
structure of arguments. Much of what passes for evolutionary theory
is as vacuous as Bethell claims. Many great theories are held
together by chains of dubious metaphor and analogy. Bethell has
correctly identified the hogwash surrounding evolutionary
theory...Darwin did propose an independent criterion, but Bethell
argues quite correctly that he relied upon analogy to establish it, a
dangerous and slippery strategy." (Gould S.J., "Ever Since Darwin",
1977, pp40-41)
PM>[Going back a bit, let's take another look at a sentence: ]
>
>"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.
PM>[As for cogency, there are a number of serious problems in
>Johnson's characterizations of "evolution", "evolutionary theory",
>and "Darwinism". Mainly, these stem from Johnson's use of his own
>connotation of each, while mistakenly assuming that his connotation
>is operative for each occurrence in the literature.
No evidence is supplied for this assertion.
PM"Stunning" is usually applied to phenomena with the attribute of
>novelty, something to which Johnson's recycled polemics cannot lay
>claim.
As I've said before, Johnson makes no claim for "novelty". He points
out that many before him have weighed Darwinism in the balance and
found it wanting. But is this an insight into the evolutionary mind
- that what is newest must be truest?
PM>Educated Americans will find Johnson's book the basis for a
>fundamental belly laugh at a specific instance of an outsider
>critiquing a field, and delimiting the extent of his ignorance
>rather than unmasking flaws in that field.
This bluster by Elsberry only serves to confirm Johnson's point!
PM>It would seem that SciCre literature and its fellow travelers -
>Johnson's "Darwin On Trial" among them
And as I have already pointed out, Johnson is not a scientific
creationist. Elsberry shows a lack of critical acumen in this area.
PM>- suffer from a critical dependence upon previously forwarded
>arguments. Few new forms of argumentation have been forthcoming on
>the SciCre side of things since the days of George MacReady Price.
>Johnson, unfortunately, covers no new ground. There already exist
>compendiums of rebuttals to the archetypal SciCre arguments, so much
>of the possible criticism of "Darwin On Trial" will be, in a sense,
>redundant.-- WRE]
Leaving aside Elsberry's confused linking of Johnson with "George
MacReady Price" (!), there is an element of truth in Elsberry's claim
that Johnson "covers no new ground" - he doesn't need to. If
Darwin's General Theory is false, it has been false from the
beginning, and there is no need to have "new forms of argumentation".
But I do think that Johnson has broke new ground in his analysis of
the logical structure of Darwinist arguments. And clearly his
opponents like Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse and zoologist
Arthur Shapiro think so:
"After indulging in a few moments of the ritual Johnson-bashing that
the spirit of the occasion required, Ruse changed his tone
dramatically and engaged in some profound public soul-searching. The
Dallas conference seemed to have made a big impression on him. He
reported that he had found me and the other participants to be very
likable people, and he thought our discussions had been "quite
constructive." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, p163)
PM>==* PE_JOHNSON DARWIN_ON_TRIAL CRITIQUE ELSBERRY
>A Critique of Specific Failings of Phillip E. Johnson's "Darwin On Trial"
>Copyright 1992 by Wesley R. Elsberry
[...]
PM>On page 3, Johnson confuses "evolution" with "evolutionary
>[mechanism] theories" (EMTs hereafter).
Not really. A major part of Johnson's point is that "evolution" minus
a "mechanism" is vacuous:
"But consider Colin Patterson's point that a fact of evolution is
vacuous unless it comes with a supporting theory. Absent an
explanation of how fundamental transformations can occur, the bare
statement that "humans evolved from fish" is not impressive. What
makes the fish story impressive, and credible, is that scientists
think they know how a fish can be changed into a human without
miraculous intervention. Charles Darwin made evolution a scientific
concept by showing, or claiming to have shown, that major
transformations could occur in very small steps by purely natural
means, so that time, chance, and differential survival could take the
place of a miracle. If Darwin's scenario of gradual adaptive change
is wrong, then "evolution" may be no more than a label we attach to
the observation that men and fish have certain common features, such
as the vertebrate body plan. Disagreements about the mechanism of
evolution are therefore of fundamental importance to those of us who
want to know whether the scientists really know as much as they have
been claiming to know. An adequate theory of how evolution works is
particularly indispensable when evolution is deemed to imply, as
countless Darwinists have insisted, that purposeless material
mechanisms are responsible for our existence. "Evolution" in the
sense in which, these scientists use the term as a mechanistic
process, and so the content of any "fact" that is left when the
mechanism is subtracted is thoroughly obscure." (Johnson P.E.,
"Darwin on Trial", 1993, p12)
PM>p. 3(q): {The conflict requires careful consideration, because the
>terms are confusing.}
>
>Johnson does little to cure the confusion, though. He proceeds to define
>"creation-science" and "creationism", but avoids delving explicitly into
>what he means by his use of "evolution". He does say this, though:
Elsberry needs to read more carefully! Johnson defines
"explicitly...what he means by his use of `evolution' on the same
page:
"that all living things evolved by a gradual, natural process-from
nonliving matter to simple micro organisms, leading eventually to
man." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, p3)
Eugenie Scott understood this because in a tape I have of her
debating Johnson, she refers to Johnson's definition of "evolution".
PM>p. 4(q): {"Evolution" contradicts "creation" only when it is
>explicitly or tacitly defined as _fully naturalistic evolution_ --
>meaning.}
>
>At this point, Johnson has departed into the weeds. This is a
>shame, since it means that the rest of his book is devoted to the
>pursuit of chimeras -- Johnson's misunderstandings of what science
>is and what part evolution has within science.
I disagree here with Johnson. Even if "Evolution" was "explicitly or
tacitly defined as "fully naturalistic evolution", I cannot see that
it necessarily "contradicts `creation'". God could have used a set
of "fully naturalistic" processes to originate and develop His living
world. Even Dawkins' so-called `blind watchmaker' evolution would not
necessarily "contradict `creation'", since the Bible clearly
teaches that *all* things are under God's control (Rom 11:36; Eph
1:11), even apparently random events (1Ki 22:34; Pr 16:33). Only
"evolution that is not directed by any purposeful intelligence"
actually "contradicts `creation'".
PM>In a footnote on page 4, Johnson expands upon his "c"
>definitions.
>
>p. 4 (q)(footnote): {Clearing up confusion requires a careful and
>consistent use of terms. In this book, "creation-science" refers to
>young-earth, six-day special creation. "Creationism" means belief in
>creation in a more general sense. Persons who believe that the earth
>is billions of years old, and that simple forms of life evolved
>gradually to become more complex forms including humans, are
>"creationists" if they believe that a supernatural Creator not only
>initiated this process but in some meaningful sense _controls_ it in
>furtherance of a purpose. As we shall see, "evolution" (in
>contemporary scientific usage) excludes not just creation-science but
>creationism in the broad sense. By "Darwinism" I mean fully
>naturalistic evolution, involving chance mechanisms guided by natural
>selection.}
PM>Still no definition of "evolution" given
See above.
PM>although he has delimited the "c" definitions reasonably well.
>Given that Johnson then eschews the discussion of creation-science
>or creationism in the rest of the book, this seems like a pointless
>exercise to take up in the first two pages of his work.
I suppose clearly defining terms would seem "pointless" to a
convinced Darwinist? Johnson wished to distinguish his position from
"creation-science". He says quite clearly:
"...I am not a defender of creation-science, and in fact I am not
concerned in this book with addressing any conflicts between the
Biblical accounts and the scientific evidence...I assume that the
creation-scientists are biased by their precommitment to Biblical
fundamentalism, and I will have very little to say about their
position." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, p14)
PM>Further, leaving "evolution" without clear definition is fatal to
>his purpose, for as Johnson states:
>p. 3(q): {The conflict requires careful explanation, because the terms are
>confusing.}
See above. Johnson does give a "clear definition" of "evolution" on
page 3. Here it is again:
"that all living things evolved by a gradual, natural process-from
nonliving matter to simple micro organisms, leading eventually to
man." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, p3)
PM>Skipping ahead a bit, we find on page 15 a remarkable sentence.
>
>p. 15(q): {My subject is not history but the logic of current
>controversy, and so my interest must be in Darwinism and not Darwin.}
>
>We see here the emergence of a pattern. Johnson claims that he
>wishes to clear up controversy, and establishes that the terms used
>in the debate could be confusing. So Johnson defines two terms
>which he has no intention of using to any great extent in the rest
>of his volume while not defining clearly the ones which he will use
>over and over.
This is interesting example of Darwinist verbal trickery. Ellsberry
earlier claimed that Johnson had not defined *one* term - "evolution"
(in fact he had - see page 3). But now Ellsberry has transformed
this *one* term into "the ones" ie. many terms.
PM>Then, we discover that rather than explore the subject of the
title of Johnson's book
These days titles are chosen by the publisher, not the author.
Johnson may have chosen the title "Darwin on Trial", but then again
he may not. Johnson makes the point somewhere that even the title of
his second book "Reason in the Balance", was not his original choice
- he wanted to call it "The Beginning of Reason".
PM>we will be treated instead to an exploration of Darwinism. This
>could lead one to believe that Johnson's purpose in writing this
>book may not be to clear up controversy, but rather to layer the
>controversy with another mass of obfuscation.
How? Johnson clearly defines what his book is about - "Darwinism and
not Darwin". Ellsberry himself points out that "the cover text
for `Darwin On Trial'" starts:
"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".
No reader who was thinking of buying the book to find out about
"Darwin" would be mislead.
PM>p. 5(q): {The trial thus ended in a conviction and a nominal
>fine of $100. On appeal, the Tennessee supreme court threw out
>the fine on a technicality but held the statute constitutional.}
>
>If one examines p. 273 of Gould's "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes", it
>seems apparent that no review of the law occurred.
I don't know how Elsberry deduces this. Gould says:
"Scope's conviction was eventually quashed on a technicality."
(Gould S.J., "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes", 1984, p273)
Where does Elsberry think that court decisions "eventually" get
"quashed", but upon "appeal" and "review" in a higher court?
Indeed, if Elsberry had read Johnson more carefully he would
have discovered in the endnotes that Johnson quotes the actual
Supreme Court case citation and an extract from it:
"The legal citation for the Tennessee Supreme Court's opinion is
Scopes v. State, 154 Tenn. 105, 289 S.W. 363 (1927). In upholding
the statute the court rejected an argument that prohibiting the
teaching of evolution violated a clause of the state constitution
which required the legislature "to cherish literature and science."
The court reasoned that the legislature might have thought that "by
reason of popular prejudice, the cause of education and the study of
science generally will be promoted by forbidding the teaching of
evolution in the schools of the state." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
Trial", 1993, p173)
But in case Pim (or Elsberry) is still unconvinced, here is what the
Encyclopaedia Britannica says:
"Scopes...was convicted and fined $100. On appeal, the state
supreme court upheld the constitutionality of the 1925 law but
acquitted Scopes on the technicality that he had been fined
excessively. The law was repealed in 1967." ("Scopes Trial",
Encyclopaedia Britannica, Benton: Chicago, 15th edition, 1984,
viii:988)
PM>Also, if a fine of $100 in 1926 currency is "nominal", I wonder
>if Johson would be willing to pay me the equivalent sum in today's
>currency for each factual error of his that I expose. Somehow, I
>think that he would not care to take me up on that even for one
>error's worth of correction. If so, I'll take mine in gold
>certificates, please.
I agree that "a fine of $100 in 1926 currency is" not "nominal",
in the normal sense of the word. Maybe it's a legal term?
PM>pp. 5&6: Johnson recounts a partial history of Henry Fairfield
>Osborn and Nebraska Man. As Gould points out in his SciAm review,
>this treatment ignores the fact that Osborn discovered and
>published the observation that Nebraska Man was actually an extinct
>peccary.
Johnson answers this criticism by Gould in his second edition, by
pointing out Gould's own criticism of Osborn's failure to publicly
admit his error:
"On the other hand, critics of Osborn's behavior after the fiasco
came to light might have written something as devastating as this:
"Osborn, who was never praised for a charitable nature, simply shut
up and never mentioned Hesperopithecus again in his numerous
succeeding articles on human ancestry. He had enjoyed the glory,
but let [his colleague] take the heat in a forthright retraction
published in Science." From Gould's essay in Bully for Brontosaurus
(1991), p. 442.]" (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, p209)
PM>p. 7(q): {If we say that naturalistic evolution is _science_,
>and supernatural creation is _religion_, the effect is not very
>different from saying that the former is true and the latter is
>fantasy. When the doctrines of science are taught as fact, then
>whatever those doctrines exclude cannot be true. By the use of
>labels, objections to naturalistic evolution can be dismissed
>without a fair hearing.}
>
>Johnson simply displays how far out of it he is with this
>conflation. Fields of study with differing assumptions are not
>directly comparable. Attempting to extablish the relative worth of
>findings in , with those of theology, which does consider the
>supernatural, is an exercise in futility, or in Johnson's case,
>rhetorical devices and fallacies.
Why is it necessarily so that "science" "by definition" "does not
examine the supernatural"? If the supernatural is real, then
science should study it, if it wants to be a description of all of
reality. OTOH, if science determines in advance that the
supernatural is not real, then Johnson's point is confirmed.
PM>The answer to Johnson's predicament is not to go tilting at well
>supported theories, but rather to take Thoraeu's advice. Educate the
>public, making clear that the difference between "science" and
>"religion" is not equivalent to the difference between "fact" and
>"fantasy".
I am sure that Johnson would be most happy with that!
PM>Good instruction in science will make clear that most of
>what is currently accepted theory in science will someday in the
>future be considered erroneous to some degree or another.
Agreed. There are many who believe that Darwinist macroevolution
will one day be looked back on with wonder that 19-20th century
scientists should have been so gullible to accept such a fantastic
theory with so little real evidence:
"How has the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection
managed, for upwards of a century, to fasten itself like a
superstition on so-called enlightened opinion? Why is the theory
still defended so vigorously? Personally, I have little doubt that
scientific historians of the future will find it mysterious that a
theory which could be seen to be unworkable came to be so widely
believed" (Hoyle F., "The Intelligent Universe", 1983, p25)
PM>"Doctrines >of science" should not, as Johnson points out, be
>taught as fact, where those "doctrines" are hypotheses and
>theories. On the other hand, an appreciation of empirical inquiry
>should be part irst phenomenon, the scientific method may produce a
>theory giving a mechanism. If the mechanism is testable given
>current technology, evidentiary support or contradiction may be
>found, and the theory will be supported, modified, or abandoned.
But not if the "theory" is deemed to be a *fact*:
"...the truth is that evolution is an irrefutable fact" (Montagu A.,
1981, in Bird W.R., "The Origin of Species Revisited", 1991, Vol.
II, p160)
PM>On the other hand, the second phenomenon may well be explicable
>via natural mechanisms, but still be the result of supernatural
>action.
Agreed.
PM>In the case of the second phenomenon, science is incapable
>of distinguishing what is analogous to a statistical Type II error.
>The difference between how science operates and how Johnson and
>many SciCre-ists believe that science should operate is that
>science and its practitioners do not even attempt to distinguish
>whether the natural mechanisms proposed to explain the second
>phenomenon are actually causal, or simply apparently causal,
>whereas Johnson apparently believes that science should concern
>itself with considerations
Clear as mud. I don't know what (if anything) Elsberry is saying
here. Perhaps you can translate, Pim?
[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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------