From: Stephen E. Jones <sejones@iinet.net.au>
>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"?
Like you, I only have a limited amount of time to devote to this debate.
While I will occasionally make the time to do a search of the archives in
order to substantiate a point, I prefer to reserve that for the important
points. If you want to make an issue of this, then I'll do it. Otherwise, I
invite you to just treat my claim as hearsay.
>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.
The difference between making up one's mind and making an absolute claim
seems reasonably clear to me. I suppose it could be made clearer, but this
is not an issue of sufficient interest to me to justify the time.
>>>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.
By "common descent", I of course meant "common ancestry". And I was
referring to common ancestry of all extant organisms. Sorry for any
confusion.
Creationists do not agree with common ancestry. (Perhaps a few evolutionists
might not go so far as to assert a common ancestry for *all* organisms, but
they would at least agree on the common ancestry, say, of all vertebrates.)
While Gould places more emphasis on genetic drift than do some others, he
doesn't deny the importance of natural selection:
"And, yes again, I know of no scientific mechanism other than natural
selection with the proven power to build structures of such eminently
workable design."
(http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWarchdisplay.cgi?19970612034F@p3)
>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?
I've already said that I'm more inclined to the views of Dawkins than of
Gould, and I briefly explained why (see below).
>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.
Opinion noted.
>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.
Opinion noted.
>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.
I don't know. Maybe it's because he thinks his version fits the facts
better. Or maybe not. But I'm pleased to see that, unlike Bertvan, you don't
object to questioning people's motives.
>>>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;
So you agree now that these are details, not fundamentals?
>and 2) it has not "been confirmed by repeated experiments"
>except maybe at a relatively trivial level (and even there it has
problems).
See below.
>>>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%.
You think it's "virtually meaningless" to say that mutation, genetic drift
and natural selection all play a part in evolution (even if I don't specify
their relative importance)? That's a strange usage of "virtually
meaningless". And I certainly don't think that any creationist would agree
that common ancestry of all organisms is virtually meaningless.
I doubt anyway if the differences are as great as your hypothetical figures
imply. See the quote above from Gould about natural selection.
By the way, it doesn't make much sense to talk about the relative importance
of mutation, because all the evolutionists you mentioned would agree that
mutation is essential to both the other mechanisms (natural selection and
drift), and not an independent mechanism of evolution.
>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".
I was referring to evidence from "junk DNA". But I was using the word
"experiments" rather loosely. Strictly, you can't carry out experiments on
past processes (unless you have a time travel machine!). So I concede I made
an error here, and retract the point.
The theory of evolution concerns both past processes and current processes.
Only the latter are amenable to experiment. In this respect, the theory
differs from the theory of relativity, which is only concerned with current
processes.
I don't claim that my analogy with relativity is perfect -- there's no such
thing as a perfect analogy. I have read claims that the theory of evolution
has been verified to a greater level of confidence than the theory of
relativity. I don't know if that claim is justified. I'm somewhat sceptical
about it, and have never made it myself.
The point I was making was that we all accept theories for which we haven't
personally checked all the evidence.
By the way, when you say that you provisionally accept common ancestry, do
you mean common ancestry of all extant organisms, or something more limited?
>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?
Thank you for drawing my attention to these interesting articles, which I
was previously unaware of.
These scientists are proposing speculative theories which, if confirmed,
would appear to solve some known problems with the existing paradigm. That's
the way science works.
The YECs, on the other hand, are making their claim on no basis other than
that the existing paradigm conflicts with their religious dogma.
I don't claim that there's a precise line between pseudoscience and
speculative science -- I think there's a gray area in between. But it's
clear to me that the YECs are well to one side of that grey area, and the
scientists you quote are probably on the other.
>>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!
I was being somewhat rhetorical there. My point was that Jaki's claim is so
vague as to amount to nothing more than another opinion.
>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).
Should I be concerned about what a "group of students" thought in 1959, even
if there number was "not inconsiderable"? Especially as only some undefined
proportion of them were "strongly in disagreement", while the others were
either "not particularly interested" or didn't consider the matter to be of
"any particular importance"? And we're only told that they disagreed with
"much of current thought". Does that mean they were anti-evolutionists?
>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.
Jaki makes it clear that the "respectable minority" he's referring to are
those who are "against the majority position represented by Darwinists." But
Gould and Lewontin *are* Darwinists, so he was not including them.
>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"!
You seem to be assuming that atheists are more interested in remaining
atheists than in knowing the truth. That may be true of some (but probably
not many). It isn't true of me. If there is a God out there, I'd really like
to know about it! My being an atheist is a result of failing to find
evidence of God; it isn't my goal. Most atheists started off as theists (to
a greater or lesser degree), so have already shown themselves prepared to
change their minds.
>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:
True, although a biblical literalist can't accept evolution and remain a
biblical literalist.
Richard Wein (Tich)
See my web pages for various games at http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~tich/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 19 2000 - 10:21:33 EST