On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 16:37:31 -0500, Brian D Harper wrote:
[...]
>SJ>As always, comments and criticisms would be much appreciated!
BH>OK, I'll give a few (hopefully) short comments.
Thanks Brian. However, I must warn you that you have the right
to remain silent, but anything you do say will be taken down and
used in evidence against you! ;-)
[...]
>SJ>1.4.2. MANY BIOLOGISTS PAST AND PRESENT HAVE NOT FULLY ACCEPTED
>>DARWIN'S THEORY
bh>There is a danger that this might turn into something analogous
>to an argument from authority. Look for an expert that says
>what you hope for. Then take comfort in this without looking
>further. I'm not saying Steve is promoting this, just that
>there is a tendency for some to take this sort of view.
Aw. I thought we were back on first name terms, Brian! Seriously, I
think it is important at the outset in a series on "Difficulties of
Darwinsim", to make the point that many biologists have major problems
with the dominant Neo-Darwinian theory. Especially since Darwinists
do their best to downplay it, and the general public may not be
aware of it.
I am completely unrepentant that this part of the series is an
argument from authority. Darwinists use the argument from authority
routinely-their works are full of claims that "all reputable biologists
accept evolution", etc. As Johnson points out, appeal to authority
is particularly unavoidable in the case of Darwinism:
"The Framework's [Science Framework for California public schools,
California State Board of Education, 1990] most constructive
recommendation is that teachers and textbook writers should avoid
terminology that implies that scientific judgments are a matter of
subjective preference or vote-counting. Students should never be told
that "many scientists" think this or that. Science is not decided by
vote, but by evidence. Nor should students be told that "scientists
believe." Science is not a matter of belief; rather, it is a matter of
evidence that can be subjected to the tests of observation and
objective reasoning.... Show students that nothing in science is
decided just because someone important says it is so (authority) or
because that is the way it has always been done (tradition). The
Framework immediately contradicts that message, however, by
defining "evolution" only vaguely, as "change through time." A
vaguely defined concept cannot be tested by observation and
objective reasoning. The Framework then urges us to believe in this
vague concept because so many scientists do: "It is an accepted
scientific explanation and therefore no more controversial in scientific
circles than the theories of gravitation and electron flow." (Johnson
P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, p145)
In any event, let's face it, science has become so specialised that all
scientists haven't got the time or the expertise to personally check
everything themselves. So they have to rely on the authority of other
scientists, as Harvard's Richard Lewontin admits:
"But when scientists transgress the bounds of their own specialty they
have no choice but to accept the claims of authority, even though
they do not know how solid the grounds of those claims may be.
Who am I to believe that quantum physics if not Steven Weinberg, or
about the solar system if not Carl Sagan? What worries me is that
they may believe what Dawkins and Wilson tell them about
evolution." (Lewontin R., "Billions and Billions of Demons", review
of "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by
Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997, pp30-31)
And as for "Look for an expert that says what you hope for", I don't
have to hope or look very hard! To date I have quoted Wallace, the
"codiscoverer of natural selection with Darwin" (Gould, 1981, p38),
and Asa Gray "America's greatest botanist", who was "one of Darwin's
small inner circle of confidants (Livingstone 1987, p62)", and "a
staunch supporter of Darwinism in the United States..." (Himmelfarb,
1959, p266). I will quote others similarly eminent. I presume you are
not putting the proposition that this dissent from aspects of Darwinism
by some leading Darwinists, should be suppressed?
BH>I think the "correct" response to this is that it really
>doesn't matter that some biologists haven't fully accepted
>Darwin's theory. In an "ideal" world one would put those
>issues aside and look at the evidence.
Agreed. But this is not an ideal world. Science is so vast and
specialised that it is impossible for scientists (let alone laymen) tp one
is entitled to expect that these biologists who haven't fully accepted
Darwin's theory, *have* looked at the evidence, and found it
wanting.
BH>Even so, I know that this "discovery" (that not all biologists fully
>accept ...) did have an impact on me. It wasn't all that long ago
>that I started studying these things and so I can remember my
>reaction very well. This "discovery" increased considerably my
>confidence in the integrity of evolutionary biologists and other
>scientists in related disciplines. From my experiences in academia,
>uniform agreement on any theory is highly irregular.
I do not impugn the integrity of evolutionary biologists at all. But
the fact is that they do try to suppress dissent among their ranks
for fear of giving support to creationists:
"...I am saddened by a trend I am just beginning to discern among my
colleagues. I sense that some now wish to mute the healthy debate
about theory that brought new life to evolutionary biology. It
provides grist for creationist mills, they say, even if only by distortion.
Perhaps we should lie low and rally round the flag of Darwinism, at
least for the moment-a kind of old-time religion on our part. But...if
we ever begin to suppress our search to understand nature, to quench
our intellectual excitement in a misguided effort to present a united
front where it does not and should not exist, then we are truly lost."
(Gould S.J., "Evolution as Fact and Theory", "Hen's Teeth and
Horse's Toes", 1983, pp261-262).
And confidence in the integrity of evolutionary biologists is not
necessarily the same thing as confidence in the soundness of their
theory. Indeed, if a theory was fundamentally unsound, one would expect
major and irreconcilable differences to emerge that resists all attempts
to paper over the cracks, which is in fact what we do find:
"Suppose for a moment that Darwin's theory of natural selection is a
mistaken view about the origin and development of life If so,
wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that scientists themselves would
become increasingly aware of this and publicly state their findings?
After all, how could scientists in different disciplines not say
something if they were becoming more aware of the absence of hard
evidence in support of Darwin's theory and were face to face with
scientific data that pointed to a completely different theory-one that
suggests the world was designed and exists for a purpose?
Anyone who reads the private and published reports of evolutionary
scientists, especially since the 1980s, cannot help but notice that there
are many who admit they doubt the whole paradigm of evolutionary belief."
(Ankerberg J. & Weldon J., in Moreland J.P. ed.,
"The Creation Hypothesis", 1994, pp270-271)
Dissent within Darwinist ranks is far, far wider and deeper than in any
other branch of science, at least that I am aware of. This dissent extends
not to mere details but to the very fundamentals of the theory, and it
has been going on now for nearly 140 years!
>SJ>Popular book on evolution often give the impression that it is
>>accepted by all scientists. For example, Isaac Asimov writes that:
>>"the evidence in favor of evolution is so strong that no reputable
>>biologist doubts the fact ." (Asimov, 1981, p40). Usually the
>>vaguer term "evolution" is employed, rather than the more specific
>>Darwin's theory of evolution, which many reputable biologists do in
>>fact doubt.
BH>The first sentence should be a little clearer. Popular books
>give the impression that _what_ is accepted, evolution or
>Darwin's theory? The sentence implies evolution to me,
>but the first time I read it I took it as Darwin's theory,
>probably in view of the title of this section.
Thanks. I will work on that first sentence and maybe use a different
example.
BH>Deleted the rest. Very very interesting historical stuff
>Steve. Good job.
Thanks for the affirmation, Brian. I appreciate it very much.
God bless,
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------