At 03:41 PM 2/14/98 +0800, Steve wrote:
>Brian
>
>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.
>
SJ:==
>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.
>
Steve, are you really claiming that these scientists that you
quote do not accept that macroevolution has occurred?
SJ:==
>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.
I think its very useful to familiarize oneself with the debates
surrounding the acceptance of Newtonian mechanics, which took
many years BTW. Newton was severely criticized by many great
scientists (including Leibniz) because he could not say how
gravity occurs. But no one denied that gravity occurred.
I know many may think this to be a trivial example. But if you
study the history of science you'll soon find out that it is
not.
SJ:==
>If "evolution" is "an unsupervised, impersonal, ... natural process..."
>(National Association of Biology, 1995 Statement on Teaching
>Evolution),
I presume you are aware that this statement has been changed?
SJ:==
>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.
>
All plasticians believe plasticity is a fact, not all believe
that *endochronic* plasticity is a fact.
[...]
>
>>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)
>
OK, fine, but now I'm becoming a bit confused. Perhaps I misunderstood
what you meant by unavoidable. I thought you were arguing that
it is unavoidable for creationists to use the argument from
authority since evolutionists use the argument. A kind of "turn
about is fair play" type thing. Can you clarify?
>[...]
>
>>>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?
>
SJ:==
>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.
>
Of course my statement was an argument from authority, that's
the point. The flaw in the argument from authority is most
apparent in situations where authorities disagree.
SJ:==
>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.
>
No, that is not what I'm saying. Arguments from authority
should always be criticized, no matter who makes them.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"It is not certain that all is uncertain,
to the glory of skepticism." -- Pascal