On Mon, 09 Feb 1998 18:50:35 -0500, Brian D Harper wrote:
[...]
>SJ>...I think it is important at the outset...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...Darwinists use the
>>argument from authority routinely-their works are full of claims that
>>"all reputable biologists accept evolution", etc...appeal to authority
>>is particularly unavoidable in the case of Darwinism:
BH>Let me try to clarify my position. What I said was that there
>was a danger of this turning into something like an argument
>from authority. But the information you present does not
>*have* to be presented as an argument from authority.
I am not sure that it *is* exactly "an argument from authority".
Usually that takes the form of "all reputable biologists accept
evolution". I am simply claiming that *some* don't accept
*Darwinism*. So it is really a counter-argument to the
usual Darwinist "argument from authority".
BH>Frankly, I think the information is very useful and should be
>of interest to anyone wanting to learn more about the evolution/
>creation debate. Just as they should also be interested in
>knowing that most scientists today accept as a matter of
>fact that evolution has occurred.
I am sure that everyone is aware that "most scientists today
accept as a matter of fact that evolution has occurred." But what
everyone may not be aware of is that many scientists do *not*
accept that *Darwinist* evolution (ie. macroevolution) has occurred.
Besides, it is a vacuous claim that "most scientists today accept
as a matter of fact that evolution has occurred." Firstly, "most
scientists" are probably not theists, so it is automatic that they
would believe that "evolution has occurred", even without looking
at the evdience. Before one can believe in the alternative, creation,
one must first take seriously the possibility that there might be a
Creator:
"There's a hole in the case for creation so big you could drive a
truck through it. It's as simple as this: Creation can't possibly be
true...if there's no Creator. For too many people that settles the
issue right there. They know" with every fiber of their being that
there is no Creator, and they have built their whole life on that
premise. The noted British anthropologist, Sir Arthur Keith, for
example, summarized it this way, `The only alternative to some
form of evolution is special creation, which is unthinkable.' For
Keith, creation (which he acknowledged as the only alternative to
evolution) was simply `unthinkable,' so he would not even permit
himself to look at the evidence one way or the other." (Parker G.,
"Creation: the Facts of Life", 1980, p134).
Secondly, "most scientists" cannot really accept it as a "fact that
evolution has occurred" unless they know *how* evolution occurred.
If "evolution" is "an unsupervised, impersonal, ... natural process..."
(National Association of Biology, 1995 Statement on Teaching
Evolution), but God in fact has supervised it and moreover intervened
at strategic points in it, then it is *creation* that has occurred, not
"evolution."
BH>This is useful background information but should never be presented
>as an argument from authority. "These guys believe evolution is a fact,
>so should you." So what? Most scientists believed the earth stood still
>in Galileo's day. But let us also note that many scientists continued
>to seriously doubt Copernicus for a long time, well over 100 years.
I agree that *ideally* Darwinists should not use the argument from
authority-*but they do*-contantly! Therefore an anti-Darwinist has no
choice but to fight fire with fire-and show that even if all scientists
believe evolution is a fact, not all believe that *Darwinist* evolution
is a fact.
My personal testimony is that for 10 years after my conversion I was a
progressive creatiuonist, then for the next 20 years "the care of this
world" (Mt 13:22), ie. kids, career, church leadership, etc, etc,
intervened and I unconsciously absorbed the constant propaganda that
is drummed into us in nature shows and the media generally-that all
scientists accept that evolution is a fact. I didn't have the time
or the inclination to look into the matter, so I advised my two kids
who were taught evolution at school, that even if it was true, it was
just God's way of creation. Then about 4 years ago I moved back to the
State capital Perth (having spent 16 years in country areas), and I
dialled up Fidonet. I found an echo called "Creation vs Evolution". I
found a old young-Earth creationist called Laurie quoting eminent
evolutionists with major problems about Darwinism. I was amazed-I didn't
realise that there *were* any major problems with Darwinism. But I
thought that the evolutionists on the echo (who seemed all to be science-
trained) would be easily answer Laurie, calmly, courteously, and above
all in the objective manner with which I thought that true scientists
had. So I was even more amazed when these evolutionists could not
satisfactorily answer Laurie, but resorted to abuse and ridicule
instead. My "baloney detector" antenna was automatically activated
and I started reading up anti- and pro- evolutionist material from my
local library to find out for myself
To me, a layman, it seemed then, and seems now, highly significant that
many eminent biologists, who know all the facts, while they might accept
something vague called "evolution", cannot accept the Darwinist theory of
evolution. This to me is a good `rule-of-thumb' indicator that there are
*major* problems with the theory that these eminent biologists have
found, and therefore I, a layman, should not be lulled to sleep by
Darwinist propaganda that "evolution is a fact", but rather, in view of
the high stakes involved, should adopt a critical approach to reading
Darwinist apologetics.
>SJ>"The Framework's [Science Framework for California public schools,
>>California State Board of Education, 1990]...recommendation is that
>>teachers and textbook writers should avoid terminology that implies
>>that scientific judgments are a matter of...vote-counting. Students
>>should never be told that "many scientists" think this or that...Show
>>students that nothing in science is decided just because someone
>>important says it is so (authority)...The Framework immediately
>>contradicts that message...The Framework...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)
BH>I agree with what Johnson says above, at least the part related
>to the argument from authority. However, this quote does not
>support your preceding statement "As Johnson points out, appeal
>to authority is particularly unavoidable in the case of Darwinism"
That is *precisely* what Johnson says immediately after the above:
"An appeal to authority is unavoidable, because Darwinist educators
cannot afford to reveal that their theory rests squarely on what the
Policy Statement calls philosophical beliefs that are not subject to
scientific test and refutation." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial",
1993, pp145-146)
[...]
>>BH>...it really doesn't matter that some biologists haven't fully
>>accepted Darwin's theory. In an "ideal" world one would...look at
>>the evidence.
>SJ>Agreed. But this is not an ideal world. Science is so vast and
>>specialised that it is impossible...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>One is also entiltled to expect that biologists who have
>accepted Darwin's theory have also looked at the evidence
>but have not found it wanting. This is really the problem
>with the argument from authority, isn't it?
No. This *is* "the argument from authority"! What I am pointing out
is that the "authority" used by Darwinists popularisers in *their*
"argument from authority" is not as uniform as they would have us all
believe.
What you (in effect) seem to be saying is that it is OK for Darwinists
to use the argument from authority routinely, but it is NOK for critics
of Darwinism to critise that argument by pointing out that there are in
fact many eminent biologists who have not accepted Darwinism.
Steve
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------