Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Wednesday, April 7 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1394
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 18:17:38 -0700
From: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: RE: Where's the Evolution?
First let me say that I appreciated this post as it seemed
relatively clean of the abusive language that I had come to expect
from you. For this reason I will respond, though I almost
changed my mind based on your reply to Susan. I'm confident
that your zeal got the better of you temporarily and that you
will apologize to he shortly.
At 03:41 PM 4/5/99 -0500, Cummins wrote:
>
>> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Brian D Harper
>
>> OK, let me make a statement that you may think is outrageous at first. :)
>> Evolution is both theory and fact.
>
>A theory by definition is something that is not known to be a fact. Saying
>one thing is both a fact and a theory is silly. The late Carl Sagan often
>said that Evolution is a fact, not a theory. I suspect that many
>Evolutionists think such honest expression of their beliefs sounds a little
>too religious.
>
What you say is simply not true. One sees all the time and
in many various fields that the same word is used to refer to
both the facts associated with a phenomena as well as the
theory that tries to explain those facts. I know it is
probably surprising at first but it shouldn't cause too
much confusion once you get the idea.
>> My favorite example is the theory of plasticity as
>> opposed to the fact of plasticity. It is a fact that metals display
>> plastic behavior. Many theories have been proposed to try to
>> explain this fact.
>
>In regards to Evolution, what part is the "fact"? That all modern life
>developed naturally from a common ancestor? Or, that alleles change in
>frequency with time? Most any Evolutionist asserts that both of these are
>facts. Now, what's the theory? That all modern life developed naturally
>from a common ancestor? Or, that alleles change in frequency with time?
>It's too bad you used plastic metals for your explanation of something being
>both a fact and a theory at the same time instead of Evolution.
>
Well, I explained the reason previously. It was to show that this
type of terminology is not unique to evolution.
>In regards to your plastic metals, you say "plasticity" is both a theory and
>a fact. In your analogy, "plasticity" is a fact, not a theory. A theory of
>why metal has plastic properties is not itself plasticity.
>
Yes it is, and its called the theory of plasticity. OK, another reason
for selecting this example is that I actually know something about it.:)
Our department offers a course entitled "Theory of Plasticity."
>> BTW, don't be too influenced by Cummins :).
>
>Thank you for the compliment.
>
Well, I hadn't exactly meant it as a compliment. :)
>> The "ability of things
>> to evolve naturally, step by step, from simple to complex" is not,
>> actually, a prediction of evolution. Believe it or not, it is
>> still a point of controversy as to whether evolution (the actual
>> process as opposed to a theory) results in a *general* trend
>> toward increasing complexity.
>
>Doesn't the fact/theory of ameba-to-man predict (this definition of
>evolution is the one that is relevant) that there is an ability of nature to
>increase complexity step by step?
>
That there has been an increase in complexity in some cases is,
IMHO, beyond doubt. The question is whether evolution *always*
(or even almost always) involves an increase in complexity. It
seems to me that what the facts of this matter are is still
in doubt. This was the message I intended to portray by
providing the pointer to the article by Dan McShea. Nevertheless,
I can give my own opinion, which is that there is a general
(but not quite universal) trend towards increasing complexity.
Steve Gould, BTW, disagrees with this completely. This should
be enough to cast some doubt in your mind as to whether
evolution should really be properly defined as an indefinite
increase in complexity.
>It's interesting that you can address the fact vs. the theory of evolution
>without identifying what you consider (and what the evolutionist community
>considers) the fact to be and what you consider the theory to be.
>
You know, it might actually be less confusing if I said "the facts
about evolution" instead of "the fact of evolution". Does this
help? Anyway, I did list some of the facts about evolution in
my response to Ami. Perhaps you missed them? As for theory,
this should be plural, there's more than one. Remember that
theories are not speculations, they try to explain facts, to put
them in a general coherent framework. The most widely accepted
theory of evolution would emphasize the mechanism of natural
selection in explaining the facts.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"All kinds of private metaphysics and theology have
grown like weeds in the garden of thermodynamics"
- -- E. H. Hiebert
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 19:38:38 -0400
From: Steven Schimmrich <sschimmr@calvin.edu>
Subject: RE: Where's the Evolution?
At 04:47 PM 4/6/99 -0500, Cummins wrote:
>
>> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Steven Schimmrich
>
>> This reminds me of an essay on the Talk Origins page titled "Evolution
>> is a fact and a theory" by Laurence Moran, a biochemist at the University of
>> Toronto (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html).
>
>The article asserts that the fact of evolution is ameba-to-man and that
>alleles change in frequency over time (my words). The article asserts that
>there are theories about the mechanisms that cause Evolution (e.g. how do
>alleles change in frequency, or some such nonsense).
>
>Why can't Evolutionists just say that Evolution is a fact, not a theory?
>Something isn't a theory just because you aren't certain of what produces
>it. And, a theory by definition is something that is not known to be a
>fact. And, facts=data and prehistory is not data. So, there's no reason or
>logic in calling Evolution both a fact and a theory.
>
>Calling Evolution both a fact and a theory is solid evidence that
>evolutionists are liars to the bone. It's a shell game, "theory" to look
>scientific and "fact" to say no one is allowed to question it. It's designed
>to deceive and confuse.
I truly doubt that there's anything that anyone could say which would change
your obvious hatred of evolution and of everyone not rejecting it as you do for
philosophical/religious reasons.
- - Steve.
- --
Steven H. Schimmrich Assistant professor of geology
Department of Geology and Geography sschimmr@calvin.edu (office)
Calvin College schimmri@earthlink.net (home)
3201 Burton Street SE 616-957-7053, 616-957-6501 (fax)
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546
http://home.earthlink.net/~schimmrich/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 17:45:41 -0600
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts
>>
>>Even if I knew who they all were, I wouldn't waste space writing out a
>>hundred plus names that no one but me would recognize. Who are the
fathers
>>of enzymology? I don't know, and it doesn't matter. Their research
>>demonstrated that enzymes are catalysts, whether we can name them or not,
>>whether they were ever officially awarded for their efforts or not. The
>>same is true of abiogenesis.
>
>A hundred names won't be necessary. Can you give five references
>wherein a prominent scientist in the field claims that life has
>been created in the lab?
>
That's technically an appeal to authority ("Dr. Benton Quest, an expert in
the field of abiogenesis, claims that primitice living cells have been made
in the lab, so it must be true!"), which is a logical fallacy. I would
rather provide references that, when read, would allow you to come to
understand the concensus that has led abiotic researchers to that
conclusion. But I couldn't do it with only five references; I really
couldn't do it with twenty-five. Your best bet is still to do your own
search. Start with textbooks that discuss abiogenesis and reference books
written by abiotic researchers. These will lead you to more references,
many of them journal articles describing the actual experiments. Or at
least they'll give you a sufficient familiarity with the terms that you can
use them as searchwords in a journal database like MedLine.
Good luck.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 21:11:38 -0700
From: "Arthur V. Chadwick" <chadwicka@swau.edu>
Subject: Re: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts
At 05:45 PM 4/6/99 -0600, you wrote:
>That's technically an appeal to authority ("Dr. Benton Quest, an expert in
>the field of abiogenesis, claims that primitice living cells have been made
>in the lab, so it must be true!"), which is a logical fallacy. I would
>rather provide references that, when read, would allow you to come to
>understand the concensus that has led abiotic researchers to that
>conclusion. But I couldn't do it with only five references; I really
>couldn't do it with twenty-five. Your best bet is still to do your own
>search. Start with textbooks that discuss abiogenesis and reference books
>written by abiotic researchers. These will lead you to more references,
>many of them journal articles describing the actual experiments. Or at
>least they'll give you a sufficient familiarity with the terms that you can
>use them as searchwords in a journal database like MedLine.
Pick up the glove, Kevin! You tell us to read the literature. That seems
to be your answer to everything. But when someone asks you to back your
repeated assertions up with substance, your answer is that citing
literature is appeal to authority! We have read the literature. That is
why we are puzzled by your contention that life has been created in the
laboratory. If it has, then I think it is only fair for you to help us
out, by giving us some literature citations. Is your constant response of
"Read the literature" a cover for the absence of an answer?
Art
http://geology.swau.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 20:18:04 -0600
From: Bill Payne <bpayne15@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Recent rhetoric
On Mon, 5 Apr 1999 20:56:06 -0700 Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
writes:
>>As I see it, with a purely naturalistic process, you have no means of
preserving
>>"progress" (in the sense of increasing complexity).
>Why not ?
Because whatever chance creates, chance destroys. Try getting Howard's
perfume back into the bottle by chance.
>Bill: If we assume that the human brain is more complex than an
expanding cloud
>of hydrogen gas, then what we see is a very real and substantial
increase
>in complexity, not an artifact (IMHO).
>
>But is that assumption correct ?
Maybe not; have you ever had a conversation with hydrogen? :-)
And even if it is, what relevance
>does it have ? Nature can create complexity as it does all the time.
I know, and, as you know, it's the information content which counts.
>Outside to what ? An outside force can still give a vector but as
>Kevin and others have shown a random walk process with a lower limit
>will give the appearance of increase in complexity.
There you go. Your "lower limit" is an outside force preventing chance
from destroying what chance created.
Bill
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 20:29:02 -0600
From: Bill Payne <bpayne15@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Recent rhetoric
On Mon, 5 Apr 1999 21:20:34 -0400 "Howard J. Van Till"
<110661.1365@compuserve.com> writes:
>Bill made the following interesting statement in his recent post:
>
>>I hold that you need (require) an outside force
>>to give a vector to otherwise random change.
>I would suggest that
>there are significant exceptions to this claim. Let me
>try a simple illustration. [snip perfume] You know this process
>as'diffusion' -- a case in which the random motion of individual
particles
>gives rise to a net transport of material (entailing a vector, if you
like)
>that changes the largescale distribution of particles. The perfume
>molecules move to regions not initially occupied by that "species" of
>molecule.
This would be an increase in entropy, right? The vector is _away_ from
the organization of perfume in a bottle.
>Is the
>Creation sufficiently gifted to move through genomic phase space in the
>manner envisioned by contemporary biological theory? Or, on the other
hand,
>have a few key capabilities been withheld so as to make that motion
impossible?
As long as the motion is toward increased entropy, and as long as chance
destroys what chance creates, I can only believe that the motion to form
a human brain from a cloud of hydrogen is impossible.
Bill
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 20:39:55 -0700
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts
Moorad: Quantum mechanics is one of the two scientific revolutions of this
century.
Many people contributed to its development. I list the names of a few that
won a Nobel Prize in physics for their seminal contribution to such a
scientific achievement:
Missing the point as usual
Moorad; Therefore, do not come to me with this nonsense that life was created in
the
lab and none of the discoverers got a Nobel Prize because they were too many
to recognize.
Still ignoring the evidence Moorad ?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 20:43:47 -0700
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Evolution: dead man walking
Cummins: Secondly, the scientific data does not support the Big Bang. =
Just about
everything about the Big Bang model is in contradiction with known
scientific facts.
Your ignorance is only surpassed by your inability to support your =
views.
Cummins: Explosions in an isolated system don't organize (2nd law
thermo), gravity would have prevented expansion, etc.
Within isolated systems organization can take place. Please explain why =
gravity should have prevented expansion.
Cummins: And the few pieces of circumstantial evidence that the Big =
Bang is based can be explained by other means (e.g. background radiation =
is just diffused energy from stars). And,
there's a mountain of circumstantial evidence which contradicts the Big =
Bang
(e.g. lack of anti-matter in the universe).
I am amazed at your lack of understanding of this topic.
CumminsL Once upon a time there was a guy named Darwin. He wrote a book =
about how
creatures changed and became other creatures through the generations. =
He
recognized that to be scientific that he needed to provide ways to test =
this
idea. Thus, he proposed a number of tests. Today, Evolution has failed
just about all of his tests. =20
More ignorance dear Cummins ? Please show us what tests he came up with =
and show us how evolution failed these test.
Your display of ignorance is amazing. That you use it to attack =
something you do not understand is even more appaling. But it does =
explain your use of ad hominems.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 20:48:17 -0700
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Where's the Evolution?
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Steven =
Schimmrich
> This reminds me of an essay on the Talk Origins page titled =
"Evolution
is a
> fact and a theory" by Laurence Moran, a biochemist at the University =
of
Toronto
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html).
Cummins: The article asserts that the fact of evolution is ameba-to-man =
and that
alleles change in frequency over time (my words). The article asserts =
that
there are theories about the mechanisms that cause Evolution (e.g. how =
do
alleles change in frequency, or some such nonsense).
I understand your need to refer to that you do not understand as =
nonsense. But I thought you were interested in a scientific disucssion.
Cummins: Why can't Evolutionists just say that Evolution is a fact, not =
a theory?
They can. It's both.
Cummins: Something isn't a theory just because you aren't certain of =
what produces
it. And, a theory by definition is something that is not known to be a
fact. =20
Nope. a theory is an explanation of the facts. Goodness sake you should =
at least attempt to learn.
Cummins: And, facts=3Ddata and prehistory is not data. So, there's no =
reason or
logic in calling Evolution both a fact and a theory.
Prehistory is as good data as any. That you do not understand fact =
versus theory is not my problem. Others have tried to explain this to =
you.
CumminsL Calling Evolution both a fact and a theory is solid evidence =
that
evolutionists are liars to the bone.
Poor Cummins when faced with data he cannot debunk he resorts to name =
calling. Trying to give Christianity a bad name once again ?
Cummins: It's a shell game, "theory" to look
scientific and "fact" to say no one is allowed to question it. It's =
designed
to deceive and confuse.
Then stop behaving as such.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 20:49:31 -0700
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Where's the Evolution?
At 04:47 PM 4/6/99 -0500, Cummins wrote:
>
>> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Steven =
Schimmrich
>
>> This reminds me of an essay on the Talk Origins page titled =
"Evolution
>> is a fact and a theory" by Laurence Moran, a biochemist at the =
University of
>> Toronto (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html).
>
>The article asserts that the fact of evolution is ameba-to-man and that
>alleles change in frequency over time (my words). The article asserts =
that
>there are theories about the mechanisms that cause Evolution (e.g. how =
do
>alleles change in frequency, or some such nonsense).
>
>Why can't Evolutionists just say that Evolution is a fact, not a =
theory?
>Something isn't a theory just because you aren't certain of what =
produces
>it. And, a theory by definition is something that is not known to be a
>fact. And, facts=3Ddata and prehistory is not data. So, there's no =
reason or
>logic in calling Evolution both a fact and a theory.
>
>Calling Evolution both a fact and a theory is solid evidence that
>evolutionists are liars to the bone. It's a shell game, "theory" to =
look
>scientific and "fact" to say no one is allowed to question it. It's =
designed
>to deceive and confuse.
I truly doubt that there's anything that anyone could say which would =
change=20
your obvious hatred of evolution and of everyone not rejecting it as you =
do for
philosophical/religious reasons.
It is clear by now that Cummins is not rejecting evolution based on =
scientific arguments but based on his hatred and ignorance. As a =
Christian I am appaled to see such behavior.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 20:54:27 -0700
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Peppered Moths - round 2 (part 2 of 2)]
Typical creationist hubris. Thanks for exposing this. Too bad that it =
was done in God's name.
You wrote: Thank you very much for the meticulous way in which you have =
laid to rest the
myth of the peppered moths. =20
Indeed it was good to see how the detractors of the peppered moth had to =
resort to unfounded accusations of fraud. Combine this with a severe =
lack of understanding on their part of the actual science involved and =
one realizes once again why creation "science" isn't.
You wrote: The switch from unreserved praise to unreserved condemnation =
of Michael Majerus by the anti evolution folk was most instructive. =
This is especially enlightening given the preparedness of the
supporters of evolution to accept (uncritically though it was in =
hindsight) the apparent demise of the evidence of peppered moths as =
evidence of natural selection.
The attempt by some poor creationists to accuse of dishonesty without =
supporting evidence shows once again that they are not interested in =
science but merely in destroying what they consider in conflict with =
their beliefs. It's sad that some Christians claim to be doing this in =
Christ's name.
I have some idea from my own experience the amount of work your effort =
entails,
so once again I thank you.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 20:55:33 -0700
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts
Moorad: Heisenberg, Schrodinger and Dirac laid down the foundation of quantum
mechanics--which describes the whole of chemistry. Those I listed were the
fathers of quantum mechanics. Who are the fathers of life from matter?
Still avoiding Kevin's arguments. Why not determine if his comments make sense.
Instead you try to distract from this. Why ?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 21:00:19 -0700
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Recent rhetoric
On Mon, 5 Apr 1999 20:56:06 -0700 Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
writes:
>>As I see it, with a purely naturalistic process, you have no means of
preserving
>>"progress" (in the sense of increasing complexity).
>Why not ?=20
Because whatever chance creates, chance destroys. Try getting Howard's
perfume back into the bottle by chance.
Please show support for your thesis that "what chance creates, chance =
destroys". I do not consider this self evidentiary, on the contrary.
>Bill: If we assume that the human brain is more complex than an
expanding cloud
>of hydrogen gas, then what we see is a very real and substantial
increase
>in complexity, not an artifact (IMHO). =20
>
>But is that assumption correct ?
Maybe not; have you ever had a conversation with hydrogen? :-)
So conversation is a measure of complexity ?=20
And even if it is, what relevance=20
>does it have ? Nature can create complexity as it does all the time.
Bill: I know, and, as you know, it's the information content which =
counts.
Does it ? Another unsupported assertion. But we agree at least that =
Cummins is wrong. Once that obvious fact has been established most tend =
to swith to "information". If complexity fails, information should stop =
them for a while. But in the mean time no effort is made to provide a =
coherent argument why.
>Outside to what ? An outside force can still give a vector but as=20
>Kevin and others have shown a random walk process with a lower limit=20
>will give the appearance of increase in complexity.=20
Bill: There you go. Your "lower limit" is an outside force preventing =
chance
from destroying what chance created.
So outside forces can be totally natural. And is the lower limit truely =
an outside force ?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 21:16:44 -0700
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: MORE ON THE PEPPERED MOTH
Jonathan: On a personal concluding note, I would like to add that my =
objections to
the textbook peppered myth have nothing to do with creationism, despite
Frack's repeated attempts to discredit me with that label. Even if the
classical peppered moth story were 100% accurate, it would pose no =
threat
to creationism -- including the young-earth variety -- so why would =
anyone
oppose it on "creationist" grounds anyway?
Young earth creationism stands no chance due to it's inability to deal =
with the facts of science. That in this case it does not affect YEC is =
merely coincidental. But the reason why creationism opposes the story is =
because it serves the false purpose of 'guilt by association'. To =
paraphrase your own words: "If the best example of evolution is shown to =
be wrong then what does this say about evolution". False premise, false =
conclusion but even worse a motive.
Jonathan: No, my objections have to do with the integrity of empirical =
science. =20
I doubt that given your responses, your unsupported accusations. After =
all actions speak louder than words would you not agree. If integrity of =
science were on your mind you would stand up against young earth =
creationism.=20
Jonathan: As a biology student, I accepted the peppered moth story at =
face value for
years; when I began looking beneath the surface, it struck me as an =
example
of how the theoretical commitments of otherwise good scientists can =
color
their use of empirical data.
And you think it is not possible that your theological commitments color =
your (ab)use of this event?
Jonathan: I have encountered such theoretical commitments before, even =
in areas which have no bearing on Darwinian evolution. In the present =
case, though, I have been surprised by the
intense hostility which has been directed at me for criticizing the =
classical story.
It's not the criticism that matters but the manner. Unfounded =
accusations, a less than thorough understanding of the literature.
Jonathan: The heated reaction from peppered myth advocates makes it
clear that there is more at stake here than quibbles over whether
references have been cited correctly or whether one or two or six moths
have been observed resting on tree trunks in the wild.
The heated reactions could also be a reflection on the poor scholarship =
of your response.
Jonathan: But there are deeper issues here, as well. One issue is =
whether scientific
theories are accountable to the evidence, or whether experts with
transparent theoretical commitments are to be given sole authority to =
tell
us what's true.
Or accuse others of fraudulent behavior ? See the knife cuts on two =
sides here.
Jonathan: Another issue is whether students of biology are to be
presented with the facts, or with staged photographs which misrepresent =
the
undisputed facts.
Undisputed facts ? Misrepresenting ? Perhaps it is your worldview that =
is really coloring the world you see ?
Jonathan: And another issue is whether Darwinian evolution is
empirically so shakey that it cannot tolerate a public debate over the
adequacy of its evidence.
Oh it can and it has. But the real issue is not the debate but the =
accusations made.
Jonathan: Is "creationism" versus "evolutionism" at issue here? If it =
is, it's not
because I brought it up. If Frack thinks it is, perhaps he should =
explain
why.
You already explained this yourself. And yes you are right the integrity =
of science and those who consider themselves scientists is at stake =
here.=20
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 21:42:25 -0700
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Recent rhetoric
Bill: As long as the motion is toward increased entropy, and as long as =
chance
destroys what chance creates, I can only believe that the motion to form
a human brain from a cloud of hydrogen is impossible.
But the motion is not always towards increased entropy now is it? And =
the idea that "chance destroys what chance creates" needs some support.
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1394
********************************