On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 16:42:04 -0500, Brian D Harper wrote:
[...]
>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.
BH>Steve, are you really claiming that these scientists that you
>quote do not accept that macroevolution has occurred?
I would have thought my meaning would be clear. I emphasised
*Darwinist*, and I qualified "evolution" as "macroevolution" (since
Darwinist microevolution does occur). But to clarify, my intent was
to say that "many scientists do not accept that *Darwinist* macro-
evolution has occurred".
[...]
>SJ>Secondly, "most scientists" cannot really accept it as a "fact
>>that evolution has occurred" unless they know *how* evolution
>>occurred.
BH>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.
Gravity is a present, experimental, empirical reality.
Macroevolution is neither, unless it is defined out of existence by
asserting it is "nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of
the events that take place within populations and species" (Mayr E.,
"Populations, Species and Evolution", 1974, p351). Neo-Darwinist
co-founder Theodosius Dobzhansky claimed that the major evolutionary
events (ie. macroevolution) were "unique" and "unrepeatable"
historical events, that were beyond the reach of "the experimental
method":
"These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and
irreversible. It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a
fish as it is to effect the reverse transformation. The
applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique
historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the
time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human
experimenter. And yet, it is just such impossibility that is
demanded by anti-evolutionists when they ask for "proofs" of
evolution which they would magnanimously accept as satisfactory."
(Dobzhansky T., "On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and
Anthropology", Part 1, "Biology", American Scientist, Vol. 45, No.
5, December 1957, p388, in Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation
Hypothesis", 1994, pp277-278)
BH>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.
It's not "trivial" - it is IMHO mistaken! Gravity is part of
Physics, which is an experimental science-it can be observed and
tested NOW. Microevolution is to some extent an experimental
science-it can be observed and tested NOW. Macroevolution is a
*historical* science-it *cannot* be be observed and tested NOW:
"Natural selection can be observed directly, but only in the unusual
circumstances of controlled experiments in laboratories (on organisms
with very short generations such as fruit flies) or within simplified and
closely monitored systems in nature. Since evolution, in any
substantial sense, takes so much time (more than the entire potential
history of human observing!), we cannot, except in special
circumstances, watch the process in action, and must therefore try to
infer causes from results--the standard procedure in any historical
science, by the way, and not a special impediment facing
evolutionists." (Gould S.J., "Darwinian Fundamentalism", New York
Review of Books, June 12, 1997.
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWfeatdisplay.cgi?19970612
34F@p2)
Indeed, according to Popper (and Patterson?), macroevolution is not
even science, but is really history:
"If we accept Popper's distinctions between science and non- science,
we must ask first whether the theory of evolution by natural selection
is scientific or pseudo-scientific (metaphysical). That question covers
two quite separate aspects of evolutionary theory. The first is the
general thesis that evolution has occurred - all animal and plant
species are related by common ancestry-and the second is the idea
that the cause of evolution is natural selection...Taking the first part
of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of
life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This
process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England.
This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique
events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for
they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test. Historians cannot
predict the future (or are deluded when they try to), and they cannot
explain the past, but only interpret it. And there is no decisive way of
testing their alternative interpretations. For the same reasons,
evolutionary biologists can make no predictions about the future
evolution of any particular species, and they cannot explain past
evolutions but only produce interpretations, or stories, about
it....there are no laws of evolution comparable to the laws of physics,
just as there are no laws of history." (Patterson C., "Evolution",
British Museum (Natural History): London, 1981, pp145-146)
>SJ>>If "evolution" is "an unsupervised, impersonal, ... natural
>>process..." (National Association of Biology, 1995 Statement on
>>Teaching Evolution),
BH>I presume you are aware that this statement has been changed?
Yes. The NABT has deleted the words "unsupervised, impersonal" for
political reasons:
"My point here will be that NABT was not knuckling under to
creationist pressure, but responding in a responsible manner to a
perception on the part of religious Americans (and most Americans
are religious) that it was making an antireligious statement. As a
professional organization of science teachers, NABT is not
antireligious, and should not be perceived as such. Such a
perception is inaccurate, but it is also injurious to members of
NABT, the teachers who must teach evolution." (Scott E.C.,
"Response to the `Open Letter'; from Massimo Pigliucci et al."
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/scott reply.htm. See also
http://www.natcenscied.org/nabtart.htm)
But there is no doubt that the original wording is what the NABT
still really believes:
"The original NABT definition of evolution was crafted in 1995 as a
"Statement on the Teaching of Evolution". The first item on the list
of "tenets of science, evolution and biology education" read: `The
diversity of life on Earth is the outcome of evolution: an
unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of
temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by
natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing
environments'...the above quoted statement very accurately portrays
the broader meaning that evolutionary biologists attach to the
term....The second point of the Board's deliberation is that dropping
the contentious words does not affect the accuracy of the portrayal
of evolution to the American public. Really? The NABT leaves open
the possibility that evolution is in fact supervised in a personal
manner. This is a prospect that every evolutionary biologist should
vigorously and positively deny." (Pigliucci M., "Open letter to the
National Association of Biology Teachers, to the National Center for
Science Education, and to the American Association for the
Advancement of the Sciences."
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/openletter.html)
The really significant thing about the NABT's reversal is that
AFAIK its the first time since Darwin, that Evolution has backed
down under creationist pressure. And what is even more significant
is that Eugenie Scott, who is on the Board of the NABT, admitted
that it was the popularity of Phil Johnson's works which were the
clincher:
"NCSE began receiving reports of letters to the editor and op-ed
pieces chastising NABT for putting `antireligious'; wording into its
statement. I believe many of these sprang from the popularity of
works by antievolutionist lawyer Phillip Johnson, which are read by
large numbers of people." (Scott E.C., "Response to the `Open
Letter'; from Massimo Pigliucci et al.
"http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/scott reply.htm)
>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."
No comment?
>>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.
>SJ>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.
BH>All plasticians believe plasticity is a fact, not all believe
>that *endochronic* plasticity is a fact.
I don't know what your point is here. My science dictionary and
encyclopaedia define "plasticity" as:
"plasticity The property of solids that causes them to change
permanently in size or shape as a result of the application of a stress
in excess of a certain value, called the yield point." (Isaacs A., et. al.,
ed., "Plasticity", in "Concise Science Dictionary", Oxford University
Press: Oxford, Second Edition, p537)
and
"plasticity, ability of certain solids to flow or o change shape
permanently when subjected so stresses of intermediate magnitude
between those producing temporary deformation, or elastic
behaviour, and those causing failure of the material, or rupture; or the
science that describes and explains this behaviour. Plasticity enables a
solid under the action of external forces to undergo permanent
deformation Without rupture, called plastic deformation. Elasticity, in
comparison, enables a solid to return to its original shape after the
load is removed. Essential, for example, to most metal-forming
processes, plasticity generally increases with increasing temperature.
Plasticity, as a science, refers either to mathematical descriptions of
what happens in plastic deformation in terms of stresses, strains, and
loads or to physical explanations of plastic flow in terms of atoms,
crystals, grains, and motions of structural defects (dislocations)
within crystals." ("Plasticity", in "Encyclopaedia Britannica", Benton,
Chicago, 15th edition, 1984, Vol. viii, p30)
I also looked up my son's Mechanics textbook (Gere J.M. & Timoshenko
S.P., "Mechanics of Materials", Chapman & Hall: London, Third Edition,
1993), but could not find any reference to "endochronic plasticity",
so I presume it is not a major issue? However, If you want to
develop the similarity between:
"all scientists believe evolution is a fact, not all believe that
*Darwinist* evolution (ie. macroevolution) is a fact"
and
"All plasticians believe plasticity is a fact, not all believe
that *endochronic* plasticity is a fact."
please do so. In particular, for your analogy to be relevant, you would
need to equate each of the three main elements: 1. "plasticians"
(if there is even such a discipline) with "scientists" (or
"bioogists"); 2. "plasticity" with "evolution"; and 3. "endochronic"
with "Darwinist".
But there are two important distinctions to be made. First, if the
debate betwen "plasticians" (if there are such people): 1. is about
a present-day reality that can in principle be observed and tested
by experimentation, and 2. is not about a series of unique,
unobervable, and unrepeatable events, in the distant past, then it
is an *experimental* science question which is not comparable to the
*historical* science question of macroevolution.
Second, in the case of macroevolution, to a theist (who is not a
theistic naturalist), not only is it an open question whether
*Darwinist* macroevolution has occurred, but indeed whether
macroevolution *itself* has occurred. I repeat: if a personal God in
fact has supervised the history of life and moreover has intervened at
strategic points in it, then it is *creation* that has occurred, not
"evolution".
[...]
>>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"
>SJ>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>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?
OK. Firstly, in my Difficulties of Darwinism series, I was arguing
against the Darwinist argument from authority that "all reputable
scientists accept that evolution is a fact", etc, by pointing out
that not all scientists accept that *Darwinist* evolution is a fact.
To be sure, Darwinists sometimes make the same point, but it is
muted. Also, because the words "evolution" and "Darwin's theory of
evolution" (etc), are used interchangeably, the impression is still
given that Darwinist evolution is a fact.
Secondly, the argument from authority is used by Darwinists routinely
and unavoidably. Therefore creationists are entitled to rebut that
Darwinist argument from authority by producing their own authorities
who argue against Darwinist evolution.
[...]
>>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.
BH>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.
Be that as it may, it is *impossible* not to use the argument from
authority, both among layman and scientists outside their areas of
expertise:
"Third. It is said [by Sagan] that there is no place for an argument
from authority from science. The community of science is constantly
self-critical...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?'
(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)
>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.
BH>No, that is not what I'm saying. Arguments from authority
>should always be criticized, no matter who makes them.
Good. That's what I am doing. Criticising Darwinists' arguments from
authority!
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------