From: Stephen E. Jones <sejones@iinet.net.au>
>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!
I've heard plenty of stories of evolutionists being booted off creationist
mailing lists too.
[Snip bit about whether I'm an atheist or an agnostic. I think I've made my
position pretty clear. You can use whichever word you prefer when referring
to me.]
>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.
[snip for brevity]
>So which "experts" does Richard trust in, when each school of experts
>declares that the other side is seriously wrong?
First of all, the fundamentals of evolution are accepted by all these
scientists. They all agree on the reality of common descent, random
mutation, natural selection and genetic drift (thought they may differ about
the relative importance of the last two). So I have no difficulty with those
issues.
OK, they disagree on some of the details. So what? That's true in many areas
of science. It seems to me that, in the heat of debate, they tend to
exaggerate their differences. When you look at the argument, it's more one
of emphasis than of substance. But, of course, anti-evolutionists and the
mass media like to make a furore out of every controversy.
In practice, I'm more inclined towards the views of Dawkins than those of
Gould. Dawkins seems to be more representative of the main stream of
scientists, and there are some particular points on which Gould's arguments
seem weak to me. But I don't have to make a choice. I can accept the
fundamentals of evolution and still keep an open mind on some of the
details.
>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.
There is almost total consensus *among scientists* on the fundamentals of
the theory of evolution, and it's the fundamentals that I'm accepting.
The fundamentals of evolution *have* been confirmed by repeatable
experiments, such as the biomolecular experiments that show the common
ancestry of present-day organisms.
Of course, any theory can be doubted by those who are determined not to
accept it, and so we see the spectacle of YECs refusing to accept even the
constancy of the speed of light.
>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)
"Respectable minority" is rather vague. I would be interested to know how
many they are and what their views are. If there *has* been a greater
reluctance to accept the theory of evolution than theories in chemistry and
physics, there would seem to be an obvious reason -- those other theories
are less threatening to people's religious or philosophical beliefs.
>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?
I think that's rather obvious. Evolution in nature of a major structure like
the eye takes hundreds of thousands of years.
>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.
I assume the "self-evident truism" that you're referring is the fact that
complex structures can be created by an algorithmic process of random
variation and cumulative undirected selection.
I think the phrase "self-evident truism" may be overstating the case, but I
would agree that it's hardly a surprising result. Isn't it amazing, then,
that so many anti-evolutionists refuse to accept it?
That the pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve
turned out to be fairly low (less than half a million years) is certainly
not a self-evident truism, but an interesting discovery.
>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*!
What does this mean? How can you run a computer program in reverse?
>But whether this exercise in *virtual* reality bears any more than a
>superficial resemblance to the *real* world of biology is another matter
>entirely.
True, but you only asked me for evidence of the power of random mutation and
natural selection. That's what I gave you.
>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.
Well, I'm not familiar with the Proceedings so I don't know whether they're
obscure, but I rather doubt it. And I assume that articles in it are
peer-reviewed (correct me if I'm wrong).The Royal Society is a prestigious
organization, our nearest equivalent to your National Academy of Sciences.
If a paper has already been published there, why should some other journal
republish it?
>>>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?
I didn't know that Hugh Ross called himself a "progressive creationist".
But, to answer your question: you used the word *all*, not me. I was,
admittedly, generalizing.
>And what in particular did Richard consider to be pseudoscience in Hugh
>Ross' writings?
That's quite a big subject. For now let me just illustrate with one crass
error that he's made. I'll post separately a copy of a message I sent to
Hugh Ross's organization (Reasons To Believe), pointing out an error in one
of his articles on the web. I never received any response.
>>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?
If the evidence is sound and the conclusions follow from the evidence, yes.
>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?
Did the scientific community *show* that the theory was invalid or just
reject it because they weren't convinced by it? I'm talking about arguments
that are *provably* invalid, i.e. contain fatal logical errors.
>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?
Yes, providing the arguments they have left after discarding all the invalid
ones are based on sound empirical evidence.
>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)
Well, I haven't read Morris's writings on the subject and I don't know what
other "major" creationists Ratzsch is referring to. But I have read what
many YEC web sites have to say about the second law, and most (if
not all) mention biological evolution in this context. (They may mention the
origin of the universe too.) Here are some quotes from creationist sites.
I'm sure I could find many more like this:
"The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a
natural, mechanistic process: (1) by which the physical universe could have
formed spontaneously from nothing, and (2) by which biological life could
have arisen and diversified (also spontaneously) from a non-living,
inanimate world. (Both postulates form essential planks in the platform of
evolutionary theory in general.)" (http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.htm)
"These indications add emphasis to a principle already alluded to several
times, namely, that deterioration or degeneration rather than developmental
evolution is the universal law of biology."
(http://www.csinfo.org/Evolution_Entropy.htm)
"What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid
which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is
a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life,
you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the
thing grow - increasing its order [temporarily]." Arthur E. Wilder-Smith
(http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html)
"3. After the first cell, mutation/selection do not appear to be adequate
candidates for the ordered mechanism required to locally overcome the
effects of the Second Law in an open system. Information and order, form,
body, arrangement and complexity do not arise spontaneously, but are
spontaneously and naturally lost."
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3810.asp)
Incidentally, if Morris really says that in the evolutionist view "the
entire cosmos is itself in a process of increasing overall order", then he's
attacking an absurd straw man.
I was also quite amused to see that, according to one of the web pages above
(http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html), Henry
Morris is proposing his own version of the second law!
"Dr. Henry Morris has proposed A COMPREHENSIVE DEFINITION OF THE 2ND LAW OF
THERMODYNAMICS in accordance with this concept:
"In any ordered system, open or closed, there exists a tendency for that
system to decay to a state of disorder, which tendency can only be suspended
or reversed by an external source of ordering energy directed by an
informational program and transformed through an ingestion-storage-converter
mechanism into the specific work required to build up the complex structure
of that system.
If either the information program or the converter mechanism is not
available to that 'open' system, it will not increase in order, no matter
how much external energy surrounds it. The system will decay in accordance
with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
"[Henry M. Morris, "Entropy and Open Systems," Acts and Facts, Vol. 5 (P.O.
Box 2667, El Cajon, California 92021: Institute for Creation Research,
October 1976).]"
Making up your own version of well-established laws of physics is about the
clearest sign of pseudoscience that you could hope to see. ;-)
>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?
Well, for brevity, allow me to recycle the argument of Hugh Ross which I
mentioned above. I trust that 3 months will be enough to qualify as "long
after".
By the way, I've noticed a number of invalid arguments in the comments you
add to your digests of news articles. Perhaps when we've finished the
current thread we can take a look at some of those.
Richard Wein (Tich)
See my web pages for various games at http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~tich/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 16 2000 - 14:17:34 EST