On Sun, 29 Aug 1999 14:49:31 +0000, mortongr@flash.net wrote:
>SJ>These are just assertions by Glenn, with no substance. The fact is that
>>Stephen Jay Gould went through "Darwin on Trial" with a fine tooth comb
>>to write a hostile review for Scientific American....
>>Gould is a paleontologist and a stickler for detail, but he found no fault
>>with Johnson referring to the putative ancestor of mammals as a "rodent".
GM>I won't be able to review that article until the end of the week when I
>finally get my library out of storage. I would point out, however, Gould
>doesn't catch everything and his lack of mentioning something doesn't mean
>it didn't occur.
If it is as bad as Glenn (and Howard) make out, and it is in Gould's field,
then a more reasonable explanation is that Gould took it as a shorthand
way of saying "a primitive rodent-like predecessor".
Glenn (and Howard's) failure to give Johnson the benefit of the doubt
here reflects poorly on their TE/EC position. It indicates that the
"E" controls the Christian "T" and not the other way around.
GM>And your post today in which hippos are said to be the
>ancestor of whales still does not justify Johnson's claim that rodents gave
>rise to whales. Hippos are not rodents and neither are artiodactyls
>rodents. You are hoisted by your own petard.
Glenn is so keen to hoist people on petards that he hoists himself!
First, Johnson did *not* say that "rodents gave rise to whales".
Second, Johnson was talking of the putative *original* rodent-like ancestor
of *all* mammals, including whales. If "hippos are said to be the ancestor
of whales" they were later in the line of descent, and also derived from
that *original* rodent-like ancestor of *all* mammals that Johnson was
referring to.
>SJ>I have pointed out that Johnson, in a more technical article, *a year
>>before* "Darwin on Trial", referred to the ancestral mammal as "a primitive
>>rodent-like predecessor" (Johnson P.E., "Evolution as Dogma: The
>>Establishment of Naturalism", 1990. p35).
GM>I am amused by this claim that this is a technical article. First Things,
>the journal which published it is not a scientific journal. What exactly
>is your definition of technical Stephen? Something that agrees with you?
First Glenn ignores the main point that "Johnson...*a year before* "Darwin
on Trial", referred to the ancestral mammal as `a primitive rodent-like
predecessor'". This shows that Glenn and Howard are wide of the mark when
they try to make out that Johnson, as a "lawyer" thought that whales arose
from literal rodents.
Second, Glenn needs to read a bit more carefully. I said "a more technical
article", not "a technical article" in "a scientific journal". First Things
is a technical journal, but it is not a "a scientific" technical journal.
And Johnson was debating experts like William Provine and Gareth Nelson in
the First Things article, so he was more precise in his language, as
befitted the "more technical" medium.
>SJ>If Johnson knew *a year before* Darwin on Trial that the putative ancestral
>>mammal was "rodent-like", it cannot be claimed that he made a mistake a
>>year later through ignorance of the fact that the ancestral was not literally
>>a "rodent". Johnson was clearly using "rodent" in a shorthand, non-technical
>>sense.
GM>The problem Stephen is that science works in the 'technical sense'. You
>probably don't know this because you aren't a scientist either. Sloppy,
>nontechnical terminology is not tolerated in most scientific discussions.
First, we are talking about "Darwin on Trial" a popular level book for the
general reader, not a "scientific discussion".
Second, Glenn is begging the question by claiming that Johnson was "sloppy"
in using the word "rodent" in DoT rather than the the more exact "primitive
rodent-like predecessor" that he used for a more scientifically literate
audience in First Things. What might be "sloppy" in "a scientific journal"
is quite OK in a book of popular science for the general reader.
>SJ>For Glenn (and other TE/ECs) to keep harping on this minor point, even
>>after I have provided the above evidence, only shows Glenn's (and other
>>TE/ECs) irrational prejudice against any effective critic of evolution.
GM>Why is it that you always think that your arguments are so conclusive that
>everyone should fall at your feet in surrender? Is it a big ego or what?
I don't think my arguments are "conclusive" until I see that Glenn fails
to deal with them and resorts to ad hominems!
>>GM>How many years did it take for you to become an expert in
>>>geology? It took me about 10 years as I am a slow learner. I don't think
>>>Johnson spent his time in the trenches learning his subject.
>SJ>Glenn `shoots himself in the foot' here. On his own argument, he (a
>>self-confessed " slow learner" in his own subject "geology"), cannot
>>claim to be any more "an expert" than Johnson in areas other than
>>"geology"!
GM>Good grief!!!!! You really are something. If this is the way that
>anti-evolutionists must argue, it must be because they don't have andy data
>to present. For you information, I am manager of geophysics for a large
>independent oil co. They think enough of my abilities to have spent over
>30 million dollars last week on the work my group did. People don't put
>their money with people they find incompetent in an area. I don't think
>they will spend anything on what you or Johnson said about geology. But
>since I have been involved in the discovery of over 200 million barrels of
>oil and gas during my career, I would say that I have a recognized
>expertise in geology.
Glenn here misses the point completely. No one is denying Glenn's
experise in "geology". My point was that "Glenn...On his own argument...
cannot claim to be any more `an expert' than Johnson in areas OTHER THAN
`geology'" (my emphasis)
GM>How much are people willing to invest in your geological ideas?
See above.
>SJ>On what basis then is Glenn claiming that Johnson has made "errors" in
>>fields other than "geology"?
GM>Part of my job involves a knowledge of paleontology, both micro and
>macropaleontology. I would say that my professional expertise
I would be interested in Glenn detailing his "professional expertise"
in the field of whale ancestry!
GM>my
>knowledge of the paleontological literature (more than the 1 textbook
>Johnson read)
On what basis does Glenn claim that "Johnson" has "read" only "1 textbook"
in paleontology?
GM>qualifies me to be a critic.
How does Glenn's "knowledge of the paleontological literature" qualify him
"to be a critic" of *whale ancestry* but rules Johnson out?
How does Glenn know what "knowledge of the paleontological literature"
Johnson has?
GM>Lets turn this around on you. If you say that Howard and I don't have the
>right to criticize Johnson
Where did I "say that Howard and" Glenn "don't have the right to criticize
Johnson"?
GM>let me ask you something. What qualifies you, a
>hospital administrator if I recall correctly, to be a defender? If we take
>your argument at face value, you have no right to be a defender because it
>is out of your field. So please follow your own argument to its logical
>conclusion and be quiet now.
See above. It is *not* my "argument" in the first place! Both Johnson and I
stand for freedom of enquiry, and the field of *evolution* is so broad and
scientists today are so specialised, that even laymen can not be ruled out
for lack of expertise:
"Being a scientist is not necessarily an advantage when dealing with a very
broad topic like evolution, which cuts across many scientific disciplines and
also involves issues of philosophy. Practicing scientists are of necessity
highly specialized, and a scientist outside his field of expertise is just
another layman. (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, pp13-14)
Gould even says that a layman might have an *advantage* in some
circumstances:
"My heart would sink whenever my father attributed the carelessness of
scholars to his own ignorance based on lack of professional training. I
could never get him to understand that advanced degrees and letters after a
name guarantee no new level of wisdom and that, in the end, there is no
substitute for old-fashioned careful reading. I could never convince him
that he had a far better chance than Uno or Due to grasp the integrity of
another man's argument. After all, he had the prerequisites of basic
intelligence and adequate knowledge of jargon; and he possessed, in
addition and in abundance, two cardinal traits rarely encountered in active
scholars: time to read carefully, and lack of distorting preconceptions. I
read the two books. He was right again. Uno and Due were ripping apart
the nonexistent caricatures of each other's ideas." (Gould S.J., "Eight Little
Piggies", 1993, pp124-125)
>SJ>And second, Howard is, AFAIK, an astronomer, so on Howard's own premises,
>>one could ask how `Howard, the astronomer', would know that what Johnson is
>>"claiming to know...about biology, paleontology, etc" is wrong? On Howard's
>>own premises, why should an astronomer know more about "biology" and
>>"paleontology" than a law professor?
GM>And I ask you again, Stephen, using this type argument what qualifies you
>as a hospital administrator to know what is what in science? Your own
>argument destroys your ability to say anything in the area of evolution,
>geology etc. So please take your argument to heart and cease this babble.
See above. It is not *my* "argument" - it is *Glenn's and Howard's* "argument"!
I am *denying* "this type argument" that Glenn and Howard are trying to make,
namely that because Johnson is a "lawyer" therefore he is outside his area
of expertise when he comments ona scientific theory like Darwinian evolution.
My point is that *if* that were the case, then *on Glenn and Howard's* own
argument, they could not comment on Darwinian evolution either because it is
outside their respective scientific fields, namely Geology (Glenn) and
Astronomy (Howard)!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented." (Dr. William
Provine, Professor of History and Biology, Cornell University.
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/1998/slides_view/Slide_7.html)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------