ubj: Re: Definition of Darwinism
Date: 99-11-17 13:23:52 EST
From: biochemborg@earthlink.net (Kevin L. O'Brien)
To: Bertvan@aol.com ('Bertvan@aol.com')
CC: Susan-Brassfield@ou.edu ('Susan-Brassfield@ou.edu')
Greetings Bertvan and Susan (private; do not publicly post w/o permission):
Bertvan, I am extremely disappointed in the way you handled my post. It
leads me to believe that, despite your claims to the contrary, you are not
interested in debate, but in denigration.
I gave you permission to post my essay publicly as long as you reproduced
it in its entirety. That did not mean that you could change the subject
heading. By labeling it as a "definition of Darwinism" you are able to
present it as unfounded personal opinion. In that way, you can ignore the
parts that clearly show you are wrong and instead concentrate on those
parts that you try to claim are unproven.
In point of fact, however, (as you well know) I was not stating either
personal opinion or a definition of Darwinism, but trying to correct some
grievous factual and conceptual errors on your part. For someone who
claims to be sufficiently well-read on Darwinism and evolution to render an
informed opinion, you have a number of very distressing gaps in your
knowledge. You claim to have read Gould and Dawkins, but I cannot believe
that; they did not make these kinds of mistakes. I also doubt that you
ever read Darwin himself. You can of course claim that you have, but had
you really read him you would not have made these kinds of mistakes.
Unless of course you are deliberately distorting what Darwin, Gould,
Dawkins and others wrote. Either way - deliberate ignorance or deliberate
distortion - you more than adequately demonstrate that your intention is
not good-willed debate, but an attempt to discredit the very evidence that
you know proves you wrong.
You said it yourself: you cannot believe that there is no plan to nature
and life. As such, when science in fact demonstrates that a plan is
unnecessary, you cannot accept that. Instead of looking for a plan in
religion, however, as most theists do, you instead attack the scientific
evidence. Since you cannot scientifically refute the evidence, you resort
to a cheap rhetorical trick: you declare all evidence contrary to your
beliefs to be personal opinion and unproven assumption, thereby allowing
you to dismiss it without having to deal with in a scientific debate.
Since the only way to prove you wrong is to put everyone through a
four-year study course on evolution, it comes down to a credibility issue:
who are people going to believe, you or a scientist? In which case, the
decision will be based on prejudice and emotion instead of the evidence.
In the end the result simply reinforces what people already believe
instead of convincing them to change their mind. Which in turn means you
can continue to believe what you want to believe even though it is wrong.
You try to paint the issue as being one of tolerance to opposing ideas.
The problem is that one of the most intolerant things you can say is,
"Everyone can believe what they want, no one's opinion is wrong, so no one
can prove that what I believe is wrong." In any debate that involves the
interpretation of fact, only one opinion can be right. While
interpretations can be personal and subjective, the facts themselves are
objective, and so they constrain what interpretations are reasonable. The
more facts you discover, the fewer the number of interpretations that will
fit the facts, until finally you have only one interpretation left. While
science can never ultimately prove there is no plan and there never was a
plan, science can indicate whether a plan is necessary, and science has
determined that no plan is necessary. This is not my opinion; this is not
what I want to believe; this is not an unproven assumption; this is what
science concludes is true based on the evidence it has so far accumulated.
You claim you are simply offering alternative explanations. Unfortunately,
they are not valid based on the known facts. Of course, since you believe
that any fact that contradicts your beliefs is personal opinion or unproven
assumption, you will never accept this.
You keep asking me I how certain things are true. Such a question is based
on the "Were you there?" argument, which in essence states that if you did
not witness an event, you cannot say any valid about it. That is sheer
nonsense. Past events leave evidence that allow us to determine what
happened even though we didn't see it. Past events are governed by the
same laws that control events today, so if the evidence left by a past
event matches the evidence produced by a witnessed present event, we can
claim that the past event was similar, if not identical, to the present
event. I know things are true because the evidence left behind by those
things tells me what happened. Since you cannot refute the evidence
directly all you can do is claim that the evidence is my personal belief or
unproven assumption.
I could go on, but I don't see the point. As you have stated, you simply
do not want to accept that what science says is true, so what use is there
for me to try to show how you are wrong? You stated that if I did not want
to respect your position then I shouldn't be talking to you. Well, if you
want me to address any of your points or questions, you are going to have
to drop the charade and show some willingness to be convinced that you just
might be wrong.
Kevin L. O'Brien