Reflectorites
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:07:08 -0000, Richard Wein wrote:
[...]
>SJ>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!
RW>I've heard plenty of stories of evolutionists being booted off creationist
>mailing lists too.
I would be surprised if there were "plenty of stories". Maybe Richard can
provide details of these "plenty of stories"?
RW>[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.]
Richard has *not* made his position clear. He first said that: "I wouldn't dream
of making an absolute claim that there *is* no God" but then in the same post,
(in what seems to be a `Freudian slip'), he said "I've made up my mind that
there is no God."
Now unless Richard clarifies his position, I will assume that he really is an
atheist in the strong sense of denying that there is a God, but for tactical
reasons he portrays himself as only an atheist in the weak sense of claiming
that he does not believe there is a God.
>>RW>...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.
>SJ>The problem is that in the area of evolution, the "experts" all disagree
>>with each other.
[...]
>SJ>So which "experts" does Richard trust in, when each school of experts
>>declares that the other side is seriously wrong?
RW>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.
The "relative importance" of these "fundamentals of evolution" is what this
dispute is *all* about. The strictest creationist could agree with all of the
above (this creationist does), but he would place a different weighting on
their relative importance.
And if the "experts" among evolutionists cannot agree after 140 years on
the "relative importance" of these "fundamentals of evolution," then what
"relative importance" does Richard place on them and why?
RW>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.
This is the Neo-Darwinist party-line trotted out (particularly by Dawkins),
but it just won't wash any more with the general public. They can tell the
difference between a deep and fundamental dispute among evolutionists
and the normal, healthy vigorous debate that goes on in science.
RW>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.
I assume that Richard sincerely believes this, but I regard it as putting the
best public relations face on a major schism within the evolution
community.
The *real* question is why a biologist of Gould's immense learning and
experience has such a major problem with the particular "relative importance"
of the "fundamentals of evolution" believed in by the prevailing
Neo-Darwinian orthodoxy.
>>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?
Richard shoots himself in the foot here! The reason why "most people
accept the theory of relativity, despite its apparent absurdity," is indeed: 1)
"because we're assured by the scientific community" which is virtually
unanimous on the theory in detail; and 2) because "it's been confirmed
by repeated experiments".
Neither of the above applies to the theory of evolution: 1) the relevant
"scientific community," namely evolutionary biologists, are deeply divided
on detail; and 2) it has not "been confirmed by repeated experiments"
except maybe at a relatively trivial level (and even there it has problems).
>>RW>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.
>SJ>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.
RW>There is almost total consensus *among scientists* on the fundamentals of
>the theory of evolution, and it's the fundamentals that I'm accepting.
See above. This is virtually meaningless unless "the relative importance" of
those "fundamentals" can be agreed upon. If one biologist rates mutation at
50%, genetic drift at 40% and natural selection at 10%; he is believing
something quite different from a biologist who rates mutation at
5%, genetic drift at 10% and natural selection at 85%.
RW>The fundamentals of evolution *have* been confirmed by repeatable
>experiments, such as the biomolecular experiments that show the common
>ancestry of present-day organisms.
I provisionally accept common ancestry but I am not aware of any
"*repeatable* experiments" (my emphasis), including "biomolecular
experiments," that "show the common ancestry of present-day organisms"
Perhaps Richard can state what these "repeatable experiments" are and
how they "show the common ancestry of present-day organisms".
RW>Of course, any theory can be doubted by those who are determined not to
>accept it
And of course "any theory can be" *believed* "by those who are determined"
*to* "accept it"!
RW>and so we see the spectacle of YECs refusing to accept even the
>constancy of the speed of light.
Well, it's not only YECs who don't accept that the speed of light has not
been constant over time. Some physicists don't accept it either:
http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19990724/isnothings.html New Scientist,
24 July 1999 ... Is nothing sacred? ... Call it heresy, but all the big
cosmological problems will simply melt away, if you break one rule, says
John D. Barrow--the rule that says the speed of light never varies
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991005114024.htm
"10-6-1999 Author: Bruce Rolston Speed Of Light May Not Be Constant,
Physicist Suggests A University of Toronto professor believes that one of
the most sacrosanct rules of 20th-century science -- that the speed of light
has always been the same - is wrong. Ever since Einstein proposed his
special theory of relativity in 1905, physicists have accepted as fundamental
principle that the speed of light -- 300 million metres per second -- is a
constant and that nothing has, or can, travel faster. John Moffat of the
physics department disagrees - light once travelled much faster than it does
today, he believes.... Moffat's paper, co-authored with former U of T
researcher Michael Clayton, appeared in a recent edition of the journal
Physics Letters."
Are these scientists guilty of pseudoscience?
>SJ>But there is no such comparable consensus among evolutionists, nor
>>has there ever been, as Jaki points out: "...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., "The Absolute beneath
>>the Relative and Other Essays," 1988, p.191)
RW>"Respectable minority" is rather vague. I would be interested to know how
>many they are and what their views are.
And how does Richard expect that I obtain the details on "how many they
are and what their views are"? Carry out a worldwide survey of every
biologist? Another evolutionist on this Reflector actually demanded that I
do this to prove a similar point!
But I don't need to in a debate. Here is another similar statement by then
leading paleontologist Everett C. Olson delivered in his address at the
Darwin Centennial of 1959. Then, even at the heyday of the Neo-
Darwinian Synthesis, there were a "not inconsiderable" minority of
biologists who "tend to disagree with much of the current [ie. Neo-
Darwinian] thought":
"The first inkling that things were not well with Darwinism came,
interestingly enough, during the centennial celebration of Darwin's theory
held at the University of Chicago in 1959. One of the speakers,
paleontologist Everett Claire Olson of the University of California, let it be
known that:
"there exists, as well, a generally silent group of students engaged in
biological pursuits who tend to disagree with much of the current thought,
but say and write little because they are not particularly interested, do not
see that controversy over evolution is of any particular importance, or are
so strongly in disagreement that it seems futile to undertake the
monumental task of controverting the immense body of information and
theory that exists in the formulation of modern thinking." As to how many
had actually deserted ranks, Olson contended that it is "difficult to judge
the size and composition of this silent segment, but there is no doubt that
the numbers are not inconsiderable." (Olson E.C., in Tax S., ed.,
"Evolution after Darwin," Vol. 1, 1960, p.523, in Rifkin J., "Algeny,"
1983, pp.114-115).
RW>"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.
There is no evidence that this "respectable minority" has any religious or
philosophical problem with Neo-Darwinism. Gould and Lewontin are
atheists yet they have major problems with Neo-Darwinism. One could with
equal or better justification argue that atheists like Richard accept Neo-
Darwinism too readily *because* they fear that the alternatives are *more*
"threatening" to their anti-"religious or philosophical beliefs"!
As I have pointed out before Richard's time, while a Christian can accept
evolution and remain a Christian, an atheist can't accept creation and
remain an atheist:
"There is a built-in asymmetry here. While a theist can accept a naturalistic
explanation and remain a theist, an atheist cannot accept a supernaturalistic
explanation, no matter how good the evidence for it is, and still remain an
atheist. As Christian geneticist David Wilcox pointed out: "One can be a
theistic `Darwinian,' but no one can be an atheistic `Creationist.'" (Wilcox
D.L., in Buell J. & Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?",
1994, p215. http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter13b.html).
[continued]
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 : Sat Mar 18 2000 - 19:29:04 EST