This is my answer to Susan's original "Why lie?" post. To save
space I will reply in composite form to the other posts in this thread.
[...]
On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 20:00:33 -0600 (CST) Susan Brassfield
wrote:
First Susan's subject: "Why lie?" Why do evolutionists need to
assume that their creationist opponents are guilty of moral error
(ie. "lie") rather than simply an intellectual error (ie. mistake)?
When they start doing this I assume it is because things aren't
going as well for them in the debate on the issues as they
expected!
>>CC>[D] The designer did it.
>SJ>Strictly speaking this should be "*An* Intelligent Designer" did it.
The
>>basic ID theory makes no claim that any particular Designer did it. Just
that
>>living things really are intelligently designed.
SB>Of course, it could have been *many* designers. There's no way to prove
or
>disprove the *number* of designers any more than there's a way to
>specifically identify any particular designer.
Agreed. All the basic ID theory maintains that the evidence of
nature is that it was intelligently designed. Who, or what, or how
many designers there were is a secondary issue.
But having said that, it is more parsimonious to assume that *one*
designer did it. However if someone wanted to propose a theory of
multiple designers, I can see no reason for rejecting it out of hand
as part of ID.
>SJ>A *Christian* theory of Intelligent Design can build on the basic ID
theory,
>>integrating its insights into the already existing Christian doctrine of
>>General Revelation, as part of Christian apologetics.
SB>Intelligent Design is formulated by Christians in order to defend
Christian
>mythology from reality. There's no other religion that I know of that
>requires its mythology to be hard science.
There are at least three separate issues mixed up here: 1) is the
Christian religion wholly or partly based on "mythology"?; 2) If yes,
does the Christian religion require "its mythology to be hard
science"?; and 3) if yes, was "Intelligent Design...formulated by
Christians in order to defend Christian mythology from reality"?
Susan needs to establish point 1), before she can assert points 2)
and 3).
>>CC>How does complexity come about?
>>>Complexity increases by variations, some of which themselves
>>produce even more-complex variations.
>SJ>This is too vague. Complexity could apply only to oscillating
variations of
>>the beaks of finches on the Galapagos Islands. Is Chris claiming that
*all*
>>the complexity of life, over the last 3.8 billion years, came *only* by
>>"variations, some of which themselves produce even more complex
>>variations"? That's OK, but he should then acknowledge that it is
>>controversial even among evolutionists:
SB>what Chris talks about above has been observed to occur and isn't
>controversial. However, this quote below brings me to the topic of the
post.
It was not "Chris" who was talking about "the beaks of finches on
the Galapagos Islands", but *me*!
>SJ>"Orthodox neo-Darwinians extrapolate these even and continuous changes
>>to the most profound structural transitions in the history of life: by a
long
>>series of insensibly graded intermediate steps, birds are linked to
reptiles,
>>fish with jaws to their jawless ancestors. Macroevolution (major
structural
>>transition) is nothing more than microevolution (flies in bottles)
extended.
>>If black moths can displace white moths in a century, then reptiles can
>>become birds in a few million years by the smooth and sequential
>>summation of countless changes. The shift of gene frequencies in local
>>populations is an adequate model for all evolutionary processes - or so
the
>>current orthodoxy states....The fossil record with its abrupt
transitions
>>offers no support for gradual change...Yet the unnecessary link that
Darwin
>>forged became a central tenet of the synthetic theory." (Gould S.J.,
"The
>>Return of the Hopeful Monster", in "The Panda's Thumb", 1990, p156)
SB>After I read the above quote I realized it had been quite a long time
since
>I read that particular essay, so I got it out and re-read it. I know the
>chances are extremely slim that Stephen actually reads all the books he
>quotes.
I have never claimed that I actually have read, from cover to cover,
*all* the books I quote from. But I have read a lot of them from
cover to cover, including "The Panda's Thumb". And those books
which I haven't read right through, I usually read the whole chapter,
or at least the pages before and after the page on which my quotes
appear, in order to understand the context.
SB>He picks up quotes here and there on the web and there are
>creationist books that are almost nothing but quotes.
This is the genetic fallacy, ie. trying to discredit the truth of
something by its source. It would not matter *where* I got my
quotes from, as long as they are a faithful reproduction of the
original.
But having said that, I am not aware of any such "quotes...on the
web", apart from the limited set of quotes at:
http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/origins/quotes/home.html
which I haven't AFAIK used. That's why I have started my own Web
quotes database at http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones/cequotes.html
(which I am reorganising at the moment). I Susan knows of any
other sources of online quotes I would appreciate her letting me
know their addresses!
For the record, almost all my quotes are from books and journals I
own or a photocopy of the article I have. But some quotes have
come from library books. Very few come from the Internet or Web.
I personally scan the above hardcopy quotes onto my computer's
hard disk. I try always to obtain and quote from the original source,
but where I can't get it and have to use a secondary source, I
always indicate it in the form: primary source, in secondary source.
I have anticipated this objection that I don't have on hand the
sources of my quotes, so I am building up on one of my web pages
at: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones/cebooks.html a complete list of
all the Creation/Evolution books I own. The list is still very much
incomplete as I own over 900 such books!
BTW if anyone doubts that I own all these books, I am happy to
be tested on their contents, provided it doesn't cost me any money
or too much time.
SB>Creationists love to quote evolutionists out of context
It is routine on some Creation/Evolution forums for evolutionists to
claim that "Creationists ...quote evolutionists out of context".
Fortunately it has not been a common practice here, but with the
secularisation of this Reflector, it was bound to happen.
The problem is that if this focusing on the form, rather than the
content, of the quotes was allowed to continue in this forum it would
tend to kill debate and the exchange of information, and probably
eventually kill of this Reflector. Maybe that's what the atheistic
evolutionists want?
Personally I always aim to give as much of the context as possible,
consistent with the need to be as brief as possible. But I suspect I
would have to quote the whole page, or chapter or book to keep
some evolutionists from routinely claiming my quotes were "out of
context"!
SB> in order to make it seem that
>even evolutionists doubt evolution. That is, of course, not true.
It is ironic that on the first page of my own quotes page on the
Web at http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones/intrdctn.html, I answer this
common objection. The *whole point* of quoting evolutionists with
problems with, or doubts about *some aspects* of evolution is that
they *are* evolutionists!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Objections to creationists using evolutionists' quotes
- Evolutionists quoted still believe in evolution
- That is precisely the point!
"Evolutionists have often protested `unfair' to quoting an
evolutionist as if he were against evolution itself. So let it be said
from the outset that the vast majority of authorities quoted are
themselves ardent believers in evolution. But that is precisely the
point, and the value of The Revised QUOTE BOOK. The
foundations of the evolutionary edifice are hardly likely to be
shaken by a collection of quotes from the many scientists who are
biblical creationists. In a court of law, an admission from a hostile
witness is the most valuable. Quoting the evolutionary
palaeontologist who admits the absence of in-between forms, or
the evolutionary biologist who admits the hopelessness of the
mutation/selection mechanism, is perfectly legitimate if the
admission is accurately represented in its own right, regardless of
whether the rest of the article is full of hymns of praise to all the
other aspects of evolution." (Snelling A.*, "The Revised Quote
Book," [1984], Creation Science Foundation: Brisbane QLD, 1990,
inside cover)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB>Deliberately
>creating such a false impression is considered lying in scientific
>circles and it's probably considered lying in most Christian circles.
"Deliberately creating...a false impression" *is* "lying", in *any*
"circles"! But nowhere have I ever stated, or tried to create the
impression, that the evolutionists I quote actually "doubt evolution"
itself. I certainly claim that the evolutionists I quote doubt *aspects*
of current Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, but I definitely do not
claim that they "doubt evolution" itself.
But I can't help it if Susan or any other evolutionist wants to claim
that they got the impression that I was saying that the evolutionists
I quote "doubt evolution" itself, and therefore I am lying. They could
always *say* that and there is no way I could defend myself against
it.
SB>I was shocked
>when I first found out about the lies. I assumed (why?) that the
>most conservative Christians (the ones most likely to be creationists)
>would be the ones most careful about scrupulous truthfulness. This has
>proved not to be true.
I would like to see Susan's *evidence* for this and what the
standard of "truthfulness" was. It would probably boil down to if they
believed in evolution or not!
But even if it were true that there was research which showed that
"conservative Christians " are not "the ones most careful about
scrupulous truthfulness", it would not show that any *individual*
creationist (like me for example) was untruthful. To maintain that an
individual was untruthful because they belonged to a group which
was more likely to be untruthful, is the same type of stereotypical
argument which is used to justify racial discrimination:
Also, if this research was in the USA, it would not necessarily apply
to Australia. What is a "conservative Christian" in the USA, might
be only a tiny minority in Australia. That is, "conservative Christian"
in Australia might be regarded as moderate or even liberal in the
USA.
Indeed Susan has not even shown that I am a "conservative
Christian"! My family and friends think I am fairly radical and one
Christian friend called me a "liberal"! Politically I am a swinging
voter, having voted for political parties on the left, centre and right
at times.
But maybe there is no research and it is just Susan or her ilk
*defining* "conservative Christian" as "creationist"? In that case her
argument would boil down to `creationists Christians are less
truthful than evolutionist Christians', which would make clear the
circular and self-serving nature of her claim.
SB>
>In the Gould quote above there are two sets of elipses indicating that
>material has been trimmed. The first set of elipses indicates a place
where
>Gould uses an illustration of his point and is perfectly acceptable. The
>second set of elipses hides something very interesting though.
Before we go further, I would point out that I *did* supply ellipses,
so to give the impression that I am hiding something is misleading.
>SJ>"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support
>for gradual change...Yet the unnecessary link that Darwin forged became a
>central tenet of the synthetic theory."
SB>The original version reads "The fossil record with its abrupt
transitions
>offers no support for gradual change, and the principle of natural
selection
>does not require it--selection can operate rapidly."
>
>As you can see the portion left out was brief, but it refutes what Stephen
>was saying. The missing verbage changes the meaning of the paragraph and
>reveals that Gould does *not* agree that variation and selection are
>controversial.
Susan needs to re-read the quote again. Gould says nothing about
"variation" in the words that I left out, that Susan supplies:
"..., and the principle of natural selection does not require it--
selection can operate rapidly"
And Chris says nothing about "selection" in the statement I was
addressing:
"How does complexity come about? Complexity increases by
variations, some of which themselves produce even more-complex
variations"
My whole point was that Gould (and others) do not agree that major
changes come about by "variation" (in the Neo-Darwinian sense)
"and selection". That is, Gould agrees with "selection" but not
"variation" as a significant factor in major evolutionary change. The
title of Gould's paper ., "The Return of the Hopeful Monster",
invoking the words of arch-saltationist Richard Goldschmidt, should
make that clear.
Part of the problem I find debating with evolutionists is they don't
even know their own theory or the debates within it. They assume it
is all one fuzzy blob called "evolution"!
SJ>"These tales, in the "just-so story" tradition of evolutionary natural
history,
>>do not prove anything. But the weight of these, and many similar cases,
>>wore down my faith in gradualism long ago. More inventive minds may yet
>>save it, but concepts salvaged only by facile speculation do not appeal
>>much to me." Gould S.J., "The Return of the Hopeful Monster", in "The
>>Panda's Thumb", 1990, p158)
SB>the above paragraph on p. 190 of *The Panda's Thumb* is a discussion of
>*gradualism* not variation and natural selection and is a lead-in to the
>material on p. 191.
What does Susan think Gould means by "gradualism" if not Neo-
Darwinian "variation and natural selection"?
SB>"But all theories of discontinuous change are not anti-Darwinian, as
Huxley
>pointed out nearly 120 years ago. Suppose that a discontinuous change in
>adult form arises from a small genetic alteration. Problems of discordance
>with other members of the species do not arise, and the large, favorable
>variant can spread through a pouplation in Darwinian fashion."
>
>Gould then goes on to list evidence in support of his supposition.
Yes. Gould is arguing for "discontinuous change" not for the Neo-
Darwinian model of *continuous* change by "variations and natural
selection".
SB>If the evidence for ID is so vast and so well-founded in empirical
science,
>why lie?
The answer is simple: I don't "lie"!
The problem is with: a) Susan's prejudice against creationists,
which puts the worst possible construction on things that they
write. Even if she was right in this quote matter (which she is not) it
could have simply been a *mistake* on my part, not a "lie"; and b)
her misunderstanding of what Gould is saying.
SB>Why quote evolutionists in such a way that they seem to be saying
>something they are *not* saying? What's the point?
Exactly! What would be the point? That's why I *don't* "quote
evolutionists in such a way that they seem to be saying something
they are *not* saying"! I don't need to. Evolutionary books are
*riddled* with such statements.
SB>I think the point is obvious. ID is propaganda
No doubt from Susan's committed evolutionist point of view "ID is
propaganda"! But the problem is Susan's committed evolutionist
point of view.
But in the end Iders do not have to convince committed
evolutionists like Susan (barring a miracle, that is probably
impossible). All Iders need to do is convince the vast majority of
people who are not committed evolutionists. And that's happening!
SB> just as the quotes Stephen
>picks up here and there (I *don't* believe he's read all those books)
See above. I never claimed that I had "read all those books"! What
does it matter if I have not read from cover to cover each and
every book that I quote from?
SB>are propaganda.
Since the quotes that Susan are referring to are from
*evolutionists*, it is interesting that Susan states they are
"propaganda"!
SB>Truth-value is secondary as long as doubt seems to be cast on
>evolution
Since committed evolutionists like Susan equate "evolution" with
"Truth" itself, then *by definition* anything that seems to be cast
doubt on evolution is automatically regarded by them as not true!
SB>and Christian mythology seems to be science.
As I said before, evolutionists make wild and unsubstantiated
claims in relatively closed forums like this, in order to avoid dealing
with criticisms of their theory, because they don't realise how silly
and desperate they would look to relatively uncommitted people outside.
But as they are forced to defend their arguments more publicly they
are going to have to learn to argue the facts calmly and
courteously, or look to the general public like a threatened elite
desperately trying to hang on to power by any means.
Indeed, that's how I got interested in the Creation/Evolution debate
in the first place. I was relatively uncommitted and inclined to
believe that evolution was true and just the way God did it (see my
testimony at: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones/testimny.html). There
I have an extract from my very first post on this subject in the
Australian Fidonet Creation vs Evolution echo in 1994, in which I
say: "Why must it be Creation versus Evolution?... If forming by
separating means making something new out of something existing,
then it doesn't seem far from evolution to me....".
But when I saw how evolutionists responded to a old creationist's
quotes with ridicule and abuse, rather than calm, rational
arguments, I realised there might be some skeletons in the
evolutionist closet.
I reasoned then as I reason now. If evolutionists had the facts, why
don't they simply use them? If they are right, why do they act like
they are afraid? If they are interested at getting at the truth, why
don't they welcome criticism?
The best recruitment agency for anti-evolutionists are evolutionists
themselves!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web:
http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------