On Fri, 06 Mar 1998 22:54:01 -0500, Brian D Harper wrote:
[...]
>>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...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":
[...]
BH>The following from Dobzhansky is a real keeper ;-).
>SJ>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., American Scientist, Vol. 45, No.
>>5, December 1957, p388, in Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation
>>Hypothesis", 1994, pp277-278)
I'm glad you like it. But it argues against your gravity analogy. It
also admits that there is no proof for macroevolution!
>>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:
BH>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):
SJ>"Secondly, "most scientists" cannot really accept it as a "fact
>that evolution has occurred" unless they know *how* evolution
>occurred."-- SJ
BH>I intended to show that scientists sometimes accept things as
>facts even when they don't know how they occurred.
Thanks for your compliments! But my point was that this was a
mistaken example. Gravity is a *directly experienced* present
reality, but macroevolution is a *historical* inference from a
present reality.
In the case of directly experienced, ongoing, present realities like
gravity, it does not matter how they work-they obviously do-and
nobody denies it! In the case of many historical events (eg. the
discovery of Australia), it might not matter how it happened (eg.
by Portugese, Dutch, French or British, [or Homo erectus!])-it
obviously did, and no one denies it.
But in the case of macroevolution, the "how" is all-important. For
example, if the "how" was that God supernaturally guided and/or
intervened at strategic points in life's history, in addition to His
normal working through natural processes, then it wasn't "evolution"
but *creation*.
BH>Anyway, let's forget my gravity example for the moment and
>consider macroevolution. As I said, you've made some good points.
OK. And again, thank you for your kind words.
BH>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).
Of course science can "study processes containing unique,
unrepeatable events" (eg. the Big Bang), and these are precisely
"historical science(s)". But "evolution" is a special case because
the way the word is used today, it carries within itself a
question-begging assertion that what happened in history
happened 100% by natural causes.
BH>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?
Obviously, I would accept it as "empirical evidence", but not
necessarily for "macroevolution". As a consistent theist I would
accept it as "empirical evidence" for mediate creation!
BH>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.
It was also witnessed by human observers-which macroevolution has
not been, and according to Dobzhansky, cannot be.
BH>If you will humor me a little :)
I'll humour anyone who says I make "good points"! :-)
BH>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.
Whet away!
BH>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!
Indeed Maupertuis and his philosophical axiom "of least action" is
even mentioned by Darwin in the OoS:
"It has been maintained by several authors that it is as easy to
believe in the creation of a million beings as of one; but
Maupertuis's philosophical axiom "of least action" leads the mind
more willingly to admit the smaller number, and certainly we ought
not to believe that innumerable beings within each great class have
been created with plain, but deceptive, marks of descent from a
single parent." (Darwin C., "The Origin of Species", [1872], 6th
edition, Everyman's Library, p457)
Burrow, in the Introduction to the Penguin (first) edition of the
OoS, points out that Maupertuis was one among a large number of
Darwin's predecessors:
"The theory of evolution in biology was already an old, even a
discredited one. Darwin, in later editions of The Origin, listed
over thirty predecessors and was still accused of lack of
generosity. Greek thinkers had held the view that life had
developed gradually out of a primeval slime. Diderot, Buffon and
Maupertuis in the eighteenth century had held evolutionary views, as
had Darwin's own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin..." (Burrow J.W.,
"Editor's Introduction", to Darwin C., "The Origin of Species",
[1859], First Edition, Penguin: London, 1985 reprint, p27)
BH>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?
See above. You seem not to understand that "evolution" is not
simply just another historical science. It is also an alternative
creation story:
"How much of this can be believed? Every generation needs its own
creation myths, and these are ours." (Wilson E.O., et al., "Life
on Earth", 1973, p624)
>BH>SJ quoting Gould
>SJ>"...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...."
>>(Gould S.J., "Darwinian Fundamentalism", New York Review of Books,
>>June 12, 1997.
>>http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWfeatdisplay.cgi?19970612 34F@p2)
>SJ>Indeed, according to Popper (and Patterson?), macroevolution is
>>not even science, but is really history:
BH>Where has Popper said that macroevolution is not science?
>
>[deleted Patterson quote]
Patterson doesn't given any references, but I found this is by
Lewontin:
"Popper himself, in The Poverty of Historicism, singles out
evolutionary theory for an attack. "Can there be a law of
evolution?" "No, the search for the law of the 'unvarying order' in
evolution cannot possibly fall within the scope of scientific
method...". By this, Popper means only that the history of living
organisms and their transformations on Earth -are a specific
sequence of unique events, no different from, say, the history of
England. Since it is a unique sequence, no generalities can be
constructed about it." (Lewontin R.C., "Testing the Theory of
Natural Selection", review of Creed R., ed., "Ecological Genetics
and Evolution", Blackwell: Oxford, 1971, Nature, Vol. 236, March
24, 1972, p181).
In his autobiography Popper says of "The Poverty of Historicism":
"The Poverty of Historicism contains my first brief attempt to deal
with some epistemological questions connected with the theory of
evolution. I continued to work on such problems, and I was greatly
encouraged when I later found that I had come to results very similar
to some of Schrodinger's" (Popper K., "Unended Quest: An
Intellectual Autobiography", 1976, revised edition, London: Open
Court: London, 1982 reprint, p167).
It is on the next page of "Unended Quest" that Popper's most
quoted words occur:
"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable
scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme-a possible
framework for testable scientific theories." (Popper K., "Unended
Quest", 1982 reprint, p168).
BH>[omitted NABT stuff for now, hope to get back to it
>later]
Better hurry. The words "unsupervised" and "impersonal" might be
re-inserted. See push to have them re-inserted (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) </html>
>>>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?
BH>Your statement seems reasonable to me. Since the interventions
>have a history, I would prefer to call this evolutionary creation
>myself :).
Why do you assume that "creation" needs "evolutionary" in front of
it to indicate that it has "a history"?
Either "evolution" or "creation" are sufficient in themselves and
joining them together is redundant at best and misleading at worst.
If you want to emphasise the historical element of "creation" then
qualifiers like "progressive" or "mediate" are available.
The point is that when they shorten "evolutionary creation", EC's
drop the main word "creation" and keep the qualifier "evolution"!
This shows me that "evolutionary creation" is not a viable option.
[...]
>>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.
BH>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:
...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.
Interesting. But are there really "plasticians"?
BH>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.
No. I want to counter the implied argument that *Darwinian*
"evolution is a fact". I suggest the reason my argument seems
"incoherent" to you is that you have so internalised the
evolutionary paradigm (no offense intended), that you genuinely
cannot see the point of those who haven't.
The only way out is for you to start giving clear and consistent
definitions of words, particularly the word "evolution". It is such
an all-purpose word that it can mean just about anything, and hence
is an almost certain way of becoming verbally self-deceived (no
offense intended).
BH>[omitted the rest about plasticity]
[...]
>>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.
BH>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 ;-).
For the umpteenth time-I am *not* using "the argument from
authority"!! I am arguing *against* Darwinist's "argument from
authority"!!!! Really Brian-how many times do I have to say it?
[...]
>>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)
BH>Hmmmm... Using an argument from authority to support the use
>of an argument from authority? Buweeeeeeeeeeeep, there goes
>my detector ;-).
Maybe you are triggering it off yourself!! ;-) For the last time-
I am *not* using an "an argument from authority". I am counter-acting
Darwinists' argument from authority! Please acknowledge this so we can
move on.
Any further claims by you that I am using an argument from
authority will just be deleted without comment, as just wasting
mine, yours and everybody's valuable time.
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------