Reflectorites
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 01:17:56 -0000, Richard Wein wrote:
[...]
>SJ>Welcome to Richard!
RW>Thank you. I was unsure whether I would be welcome here - I thought it might
>be a private club for theists only. ;-)
No. Theists in my experience have no problem with atheist
arguments but the reverse is not always true. I well remember
being booted off an atheist fidonet echo because I dared to offer
corrections on some of the demonstrably false statements that
atheists were making about the Bible!
[...]
>SJ>Although Richard has said that he is an "atheist" because he "found no
>>reason to believe in the existence of God", perhaps he could confirm
>>exactly what he means by "atheist", since different atheists mean different
>>things by the term? ...
>>Does Richard make the strong claim that there *is* no God, or does he
>>merely make the weaker claim that he doesn't *believe* there is a God?
>>Does Richard make the strong claim that there *is* no God, or does he
>>merely make the weaker claim that he doesn't *believe* there is a God?
RW>Ther are very few things in life which I believe with absolute certainty --
>generally only things which I've seen with my own eyes, and even then I may
>have doubts. So I wouldn't fream of making an absolute claim that there *is*
>no God.
Good. So Richard is only an atheist in the sense that he does not
*believe* that there is a God?
Therefore it seems that Richard does not rule out that there may in
fact *be* a God?
>SJ>If the latter, how does Richard distinguish his position from agnosticism
>>which holds that one does not, or cannot know that there is a God?
RW>I'm not clear what "agnosticism" means. As your question suggests, the word
>seems to have two different meanings. There's a big difference between "does
>not know" and "cannot know".
Agreed. I will ask my question again of each of the two different
meanings of "agnosticism". How does Richard distinguish his
position, that he doesn't *believe* there is a God, from one of the
two meanings of agnosticism, either:
1. one *does not* know that there is a God? or
2. one *cannot* know that there is a God?
RW>At one time I called myself an agnostic, when I hadn't made up my mind on
>the issue. Now I've made up my mind that there is no God, but I don't
>totally rule out the possibility of changing my mind in the future!
So now is Richard making the strong claim "that there is no God"?
[...]
>SJ>Phillip E. Johnson has a question which he puts to Neo-Darwinists, and
>>which they have great difficulty in answering, and usually evade it by
>>blurring the issue and/or counter-attack. Perhaps Richard can answer it
>>fairly and squarely without evasion and counter-attack? It is as follows:
>>
>>"What evidence persuades you, that random mutation and natural selection
>>has the fantastic creative power attributed to it by Neo-Darwinists"?
>First of all, my main reason for accepting the theory of evolution is that
>it has the overwhelming support of the scientific community, particularly
>those scientists working in relevant fields such as biology and
>paleontology.
RW>I imagine some readers may dismiss this as an appeal to authority. But the
>fact is few of us have the time, inclination and ability to study all the
>evidence for ourselves, and so we have to place a certain amount of trust in
>the experts, not individually, since they are fallible human beings, but as
>a community.
The problem is that in the area of evolution, the "experts" all disagree with
each other. For example, Gould calls the leading Neo-Darwinists like
Dawkins and Dennett, "Darwinian fundamentalists" (Gould S.J.,
"Darwinian Fundamentalism," New York Review of Books, June 12, 1997.
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWfeatdisplay.cgi?1997061234F), and
his colleague Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin worries that scientists
may believe what Dawkins tells them about evolution:
"Carl Sagan's list of the "best contemporary science-popularizers" includes
E.O. Wilson, Lewis Thomas, and Richard Dawkins, each of whom has put
unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the
stories they have retailed in the market....Dawkins's vulgarizations of
Darwinism speak of nothing in evolution but an inexorable ascendancy of
genes that are selectively superior, while the entire body of technical
advance in experimental and theoretical evolutionary genetics of the last
fifty years has moved in the direction of emphasizing non-selective forces in
evolution...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 about quantum physics if not Steven Weinberg, or about the solar
system if not Carl Sagan? What worries me is that they may believe what
Dawkins and Wilson tell them about evolution. (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,
pp28-32.
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWarchdisplay.cgi?19970109028R@p
5)
And the Neo-Darwinists like Maynard Smith say that Gould is "a man
whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with" (Smith
J.M., The New York Review, November 30, 1995, in Gould S.J.,
"Darwinian Fundamentalism", New York Review of Books, June 12, 1997.
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWfeatdisplay.cgi?1997061234F@p7)
So which "experts" does Richard trust in, when each school of experts
declares that the other side is seriously wrong?
RW>For example, most people accept the theory of relativity, despite its
>apparent absurdity, because we're assured by the scientific community that
>it's been confirmed by repeated experiments. But how many of us are familiar
>with the details of those experiments, let alone repeat them for ourselves?
>I can at least say of the theory of evolution that I broadly understand it,
>find it intuitively reasonable, have read a moderate amount about the
>evidence for it, and find the evidence very persuasive. I can't say any of
>these things with regard to the theory of relativity.
The point is that in the area of relativity, there is almost total consensus
down to very fine details, and the theory itself can be checked by repeatable
experiment.
But there is no such comparable consensus among evolutionists, nor has
there ever been, as Jaki points out:
"That `how,' supported by genetics as it may be, is still elusive. Indeed, so
elusive as to have produced a unique feature in the history of science.
Whereas in physics and chemistry the conversion of scientists to a new
major theory becomes complete within one generation, in biology a
respectable minority has maintained itself for now over four generations
against the majority position represented by Darwinists." (Jaki S.L.,
"Monkeys and Machine-Guns: Evolution, Darwinism, and Christianity," in
"The Absolute beneath the Relative and Other Essays," 1988, p.191)
RW>With regard to your specific question about the creative power of random
>mutation and natural selection, the most impressive demonstration of this
>that I've seen is Nilsson and Pelger's computer simulation of the evolution
>of an eye.
Thanks to Richard for at least answering this question straight-forwardly.
But there is however an immediately problem. If random mutation and
*positive* natural selection is as pervasive in nature as it would have to be
if Neo-Darwinism is true, why is there a need to rely for one's best
evidence of it on a computer *simulation*? Why not just go out and
document it directly from nature?
There are a number of other problems with the biological realism of
Nilsson and Pelger's eye simulation, in their paper (Nilsson D.E. & Pelger
S., "A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve",
Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 1994, v.256, pp.53-58) which I may
deal with in a future post, time permitting. But the major problem that is
immediately evident is that it is a self-evident truism and therefore
scientifically uninteresting.
That is, given that the existing vertebrate camera eye is: a) comprised of
three layers of cells; and b) optimal for sensing light; then it follows
deductively that one can, at least *in theory*, reverse engineer it on a
computer by breaking it down into a series of small stages such that are
each lower stage is slightly less optimal for light-sensing than the next
higher one in the series, and stopping the series when the model starts to
break down (ie. when one has to explain where the three layers of cells
came from). Then one simply re-runs the program in reverse, and hey-
presto, the camera eye that one started with, arises of *necessity*!
But whether this exercise in *virtual* reality bears any more than a
superficial resemblance to the *real* world of biology is another matter
entirely.
That is probably why this `evidence' has never, AFAIK, been taken up and
published by leading scientific journals, like NATURE and SCIENCE, but
has remained buried in a relatively obscure like the "Proceedings of the
Royal Society", and is only used by Darwinist propagandisers like
Dawkins.
>>RW>I consider
>>>creationism and ID to be pseudoscience, in a similar league to astrology,
>>>dowsing and Atlantis.
>SJ>Perhaps Richard could also clarify exactly what he means by "creationism"?
>>
>>In particular, does Richard make any distinction between Young-Earth
>>Creationism and old-Earth creationist positions such as Progressive
>>Creation?
RW>The only OEC position that I have any familiarity with is that of Hugh Ross,
>and I do consider that to be pseudoscience. I haven't yet come across an
>explanation of the progressive creationist position, so I won't comment on
>that.
Isn't it a bit premature for Richard to declare *all* "creationism and ID to
be pseudoscience" when he is familiar with only *one* progressive
creationist?
And what in particular did Richard consider to be pseudoscience in Hugh
Ross' writings?
>SJ>And while we are at it, maybe Richard can also clarify exactly what he
>>means by " pseudoscience"? What is the criteria he uses for demarcating
>>true science from pseudoscience?
RW>One criterion is the basing of theories on empirical evidence. Of course,
>there's room for a certain amount of speculation in science, but that should
>be labelled as such and there must be a kernel of empirical evidence.
So if creationism or ID bases its theories on empirical evidence then that is
science according to Richard?
RW>Another criterion is the rejection of invalid arguments -- in pseudoscience
>such as creationism, invalid arguments are allowed to stand long after they
>have been shown to be invalid.
So if a scientist tenaciously hangs on to his theory for many years, despite
the majority of the scientific community rejecting it as invalid (as for
example Wegener in his theory of continental drift), then presumably,
according to Richard's demarcation criterion, that is pseudoscience?
And if creationists do eventually modify their invalid arguments (as for
example the ICR did regarding the Paluxy River tracks), then presumably,
according to Richard's demarcation criterion, that is scientific?
RW>As an example I would mention the ridiculous
>argument that the theory of evolution is incompatible with the second law of
>thermodynamics.
Maybe Richard isn't aware that, as the philosopher Del Ratzsch (who has
made an in-depth study of young-Earth creationist writings), pointed out,
this is a popular evolutionist misunderstanding of creationist theory:
"Perhaps the most prevalent of the misconstruals of creationism involves
the Second Law of Thermodynamics ... Creationists nearly unanimously
claim that this Second Law poses a nasty problem for evolution.
Unfortunately, exactly what creationists have in mind here is widely
misunderstood. Creationists are at least partly at fault for that confusion. ...
some critics of creationism either have simply not noticed the ambiguity or
perhaps have misjudged which meaning specific creationists have had in
mind in specific passages. ... First, when claiming that the Second Law
flatly precludes evolution, major creationists almost invariably have in mind
evolution in the overall cosmic, "evolution model" sense. The clues to that
meaning are the almost invariable use (especially in Morris's writings) of
phrases like philosophy of evolution or cosmic or universal or on a cosmic
scale. The universe as a whole system is taken to be a closed system
(classically), and according to the creationist definition of evolution model,
that model is unavoidably committed to an internally generated overall
increase in cosmic order, since on that view reality is supposed to be self-
developed and selfgoverning. What Morris and others mean to be claiming
is that any such view according to which the entire cosmos is itself in a
process of increasing overall order is in violation of the Second Law.
Critics of creationism almost without exception take this initial creationist
claim to be about purely biological evolution on the earth and respond that
the Second Law applies only to closed systems, whereas the earth,
receiving energy from the sun, is thermodynamically open. But since the
system actually in question here is the entire universe, which is the "prime
example" of a closed system, the response that the Second Law only
applies to closed systems is beside the point creationists mean to be making
in this case." (Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings," 1996, pp.91-92)
And even if we grant Richard's point arguendo, it only applies to *young-
Earth* creationists, so maybe Richard could give examples of *old-Earth*
creationists making similar invalid arguments that are allowed to stand long
after they have been shown to be invalid?
RW>Well, I expect that to stir up some arguments! ;-)
Richard has indeed raised some interesting arguments. I hope I will have
the time to do them justice.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of natural selection would
assert that all organisms, and especially *all* those highly complex organs
whose existence might be interpreted as evidence of design and, in
addition, *all* forms of animal behaviour, have evolved as the result of
natural selection; that is, as the result of chance-like inheritable variations,
of which the useless ones are weeded out, so that only the useful ones
remain. If formulated in this sweeping way, the theory is not only refutably
but actually refuted. For *not all* organs serve a useful purpose: as Darwin
himself points out, there are organs like die tail of the peacock, and
behavioural programmes like the peacock's display of his tail, which cannot
be explained by then *utility*, and therefore not by natural selection."
(Popper K., "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind," Dialectica,
Vol. 32, Nos. 3-4, 1978, pp.339-355, pp.345-346. Emphasis in original.)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 16 2000 - 06:51:40 EST