[...]
>
>>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.
>
>SJ>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.
The following from Dobzhansky is a real keeper ;-).
>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.
>
>SJ>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:
>
You make some good points about macroevolution, history, historical
science etc. Before I go into that let me say that my gravity
illustration was not directed towards all this but rather your
assertion (copied from above):
"Secondly, "most scientists" cannot really accept it as a "fact
that evolution has occurred" unless they know *how* evolution
occurred."-- SJ
I intended to show that scientists sometimes accept things as facts
even when they don't know how they occurred.
Anyway, let's forget my gravity example for the moment and consider
macroevolution. As I said, you've made some good points. Is it
possible for science to study processes containing unique,
unrepeatable events? Is historical science an oxymoron? (these
are general questions, I'm not implying that you would reply
in the affirmative, though feel free to say so if you would).
Generally speaking I think it is possible to do historical
science, though there are obvious difficulties. Obviously,
one cannot do repeatable, controlled laboratory experiments.
One can, however, propose mechanisms that can be studied
in detail. One can then develop hypotheses regarding how these
mechanisms could account for macroevolution. For example,
Brian Goodwin has made a lot of progress towards understanding
the laws of morphogenesis. Suppose it became possible to
tie those with genetics so that one could show that a
certain sequence of mutations could result in a macroscopic
change in body plan. Would you count something like this as
empirical evidence for macroevolution?
Well, I said I was going to forget the gravity illustration,
however, I just thought of an interesting example :). The first
really dramatic confirmation of Newtonianism, comparable to
the deflected light experiments confirming Einsteins theory,
involved the shape of the earth. Newton's theory was irrevocably
tied to the earth having an oblate spheroid shape whereas
Newton's competition (the Cartesians) predicted a prolate
spheroid. Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis led an expedition
to Lapland to measure the length of a degree along the meridian.
Comparing this to a similar measurement made at the equator
settled the issue. My point here is that the actual process
which generated the oblate spheroid shape was an historical
process which could not be repeated.
If you will humor me a little :), I would like to make a slight
detour to discuss this Maupertuis a little. I've been trying to
find the time to write a short essay about Maupertuis, as I
believe he has much to say to us today. While I'm trying to
find the time, let me whet your appetite a little.
Maupertuis was a devout Christian. In addition to the
above expedition, he is also famous for having discovered
the (teleological) principle of least action. I have seen
several authors refer to this as one of the greatest
generalizations in science. Interestingly, Maupertuis
also used this principle to develop a "proof" for the
existence of God. What few people realize is that
Maupertuis also developed the first organic theory of
evolution which bears any resemblance to the modern theory.
Maupertuis' theory includes genetics, mutations, natural
selection and geographical isolation. Maupertuis died in
1759, 100 years before the OoS was published!
One final question. Would you extend your criticisms to
other historical sciences such as cosmology, abandoning
in the process the various arguments from design based
on cosmology?
>SJ quoting Gould
>"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:
>
Where has Popper said that macroevolution is not science?
[deleted Patterson quote]
[omitted NABT stuff for now, hope to get back to it
later]
>
>>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."
>
>SJ>No comment?
Your statement seems reasonable to me. Since the interventions
have a history, I would prefer to call this evolutionary
creation myself :).
>
>>>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.
>
>SJ>I don't know what your point is here.
Although I think plasticity provides a good analogy to evolution,
my intent was not to present such an analogy with the above
statement. Of course analogies are just analogies, they will
break down at some point. But the plasticity analogy has a lot
going for it. 1) there is the fact of plasticity with many
theories to "explain" the facts. 2) Plasticity is a historical
phenomena. At a microscopic level it involves unique, non-repeatable
events. At a macroscopic level, these can be described in a
statistical sense using "evolutionary equations" (the actual
terminology used in the literature). 3) There is even the
trade secret of plasticity, none of the theories work! (Except
in very special cases, but extrapolation always fails. 4) There
are also many opportunities for bringing this to the attention
of the unsuspecting layman through careful quote mining,
for example:
==========
If you see finite strain plasticity calculations, and
even more so if they're cyclic or dynamic, and you have
an experiment and all the finite element points are on
the experimental curve, you've seen a fraud because it
just doesn't work out that way. There are too many
uncertainties. You can match certain functionals of the
solution in certain cases but it is very very difficult,
given the uncertainties in theory, the uncertainties in
measurement, even if you can do perfect calculations,
to get really good results ...
-- Thomas J.R. Hughes, <Plasticity of Metals at Finite
Strain>, Proceedings of Research Workshop held at
Stanford University July 29 - June 1, 1981, p.719.
==========
However ;-), my original point was that your argument
seems incoherent to me (no offense intended). You seem to
be wanting to counter the statement that most scientists
believe evolution is a fact. But whether or not all scientists
believe Darwinist evolution is a fact is unrelated to whether
most believe evolution is a fact. Pointing out the one
does not undermine the other just as pointing out that
not all plasticians accept endochronic plasticity does
not undermine the fact that all plasticians believe plasticity
is a fact.
[omitted the rest about plasticity]
>
>>>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?
>
>SJ>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.
>
Thanks for the clarification. Now I must return to my original
comment and say that your approach is not supported by the
Phil Johnson quote. Phil is saying that the argument is
unavoidable on account of the weakness of the evidence.
Phil is not supporting the use of the argument from authority
by creationists or anyone else. Remember, this is one of those
things that is supposed to set off one's baloney detector ;-).
>[...]
>
>>>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.
>
>SJ>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)
>
Hmmmm... Using an argument from authority to support the use
of an argument from authority? Buweeeeeeeeeeeep, there goes
my detector ;-).
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"It is not certain that all is uncertain,
to the glory of skepticism." -- Pascal