Reflectorites
On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 11:27:39 -0700, Tedd Hadley wrote:
[...]
>SJ>There is nothing to "flesh out". The simple fact is that Darwinism
>>would not be falsified if we found another Earth-like planet
>>with no life, or only primitive life on it, or even advanced
>>life on it with no human-like life.
TH>That's obvious. However, the claim of variety would be falsified
>if we found only the same life forms over a variety of conditions.
If Tedd concedes that it is "obvious" that "Darwinism would not be
falsified if we found another Earth-like planet with no life...on
it", then I rest my case.
>SJ>Therefore Darwinism cannot predict the origin and development of life on
>>Earth at *any* level, including the emergence of humans.
TH>Rather ambiguously stated. Perhaps you should say that Darwinism
>can't predict the origin and development of any given species.
See above. On Tedd's own admission, Darwinism cannot even predict
that there would be any life at all!
[...]
>>TH>I'm skipping most of your quotes. While interesting, I believe
>>>they often do not fairly represent the views of the persons
>>>quoted, they lack enough context to be sure of the view expressed,
>>>and they do not take into account changing views over time or
>>>new discoveries.
>SJ>Tedd does not provide any *evidence* that the quotes I supplied: 1: "do
>>not fairly represent the views of the persons quoted"; 2. "lack enough
>>context to be sure of the view expressed"; and 3. "do not take into account
>>changing views over time or new discoveries".
TH>There's no particular reason I see that such evidence is needed.
>I've listed the obvious problems with attempting to use quotes
>to bolster a particular viewpoint. This isn't just a problem
>unique to you, it's a problem for anyone who attempts to represent
>a person's views out of full context. That's just the nature of
>the written word and the reason why people typically write books
>to express their views, not single paragraphs.
Tedd is begging the question that my quotes are "out of full context". It is
simply an absurdity that one would have to quote an author's whole "book"
to express his/her views on any particular point. If that was the case,
scientific journals which make a point and reference it with a footnote to
another journal should cite the entire journal!
I regard this "`out-of-context quote' defence as just a ploy. If Tedd was
interested in getting at the truth, he would debate what the quotes
actually say. If they were out-of-context, Tedd could show that they are
by citing the wider context and win that point.
But I am quite happy if Tedd doesn't deal with what the quotes actually
say. I will then consider them unrefuted and keep posting them.
TH>If you use quotes
>to make your arguments rather than the more reasonable alternatives
>I supply below, your argument is helped only marginally. You *do*
>want to make persuasive arguments, don't you?
Since Tedd is a newcomer, I need to point out to him that I post my
messages primarily to the *Reflector*, not to the individual whose post I
am responding to.
Every now an then an evolutionist tries to give me some tips on how to
make my posts more persuasive. Since I assume that evolutionists would
be unlikely to want to make my posts more persuasive, I take no notice of
such tips.
Indeed, having debated evolutionists on the Reflector for the last 5 years, I
no longer expect the committed evolutionists to be persuaded by my
arguments. I hope that some lurkers may be persuaded by my arguments,
but even if no one is, in the end I post them because I believe them to be
*true*.
Fortunately, I do get private messages from lurkers who say they
appreciate what I write, including my quotes, so I assume I must be doing
something right!
[..]
>SJ>That is indeed what I have done in this thread, and in my posts generally!
>>If Tedd wants to "participate", or not, that is up to him.
TH>In between quotes, eh? :) I didn't see too much in this post,
>but I'll watch for them in general.
Tedd still doesn't get it. I am *completly indifferent* as to whether
he even reads my posts at all!
[..]
>SJ>Good. So given that according to Tedd's own quote: "One of the
>>arguments currently dominating the competition" was admitted by
>>its champion, "Michael Rose" to be regarded by other "people"
>>(presumably meaning other experts in that field) as "possible,
>>but...trivial."
TH>That's a bit out of context. This category name is probably
>facetious and not to be strictly applied the way you do here.
According to Tedd, *every* quote is "out of context". Even Tedd's!
[...]
>SJ>What Tedd is again trying to do here is shift the burden of
>>proof. He wants me to say why *I* find it "baffling" so the
>>problem can look like it is *my* problem, not Darwinism's.
TH>Nope, problems are problems regardless of who defines them. I
>think it is quite unfair to ask you to defend Dawkins' argument
>since it isn't clear what Dawkins' finds baffling, whether or
>not recent research has changed that status, and most importantly,
>what he means by "baffling" in the context of a discussion of
>ID as an alternative, why don't you explain what specifically
>is baffling about the origin of sex to you and the implications
>that a failure to explain it have for your philosophy? Is it
>the difficulty in explaining meiosis or is there just no way
>that sex could arise in step-wise fashion, each step having a
>selective advantage?
See above.
[...]
>SJ>That's why this debate has never gone away and will never go away. The
>>critics don't feel they have been beaten fair and square. Until Darwinism
>>actually solves these "baffling" problems and wins the debate fair and
>>square, this debate will continue on as a `war of attrition'.
TH>Um... where is this debate taking place? Certainly not in
>the research labs it would appear.
When was the last time that Dawkins was in a "research lab"? Or Stephen
Jay Gould? Or the Darwinist philosophers Ruse, Hull, Pennock and Flew?
The fact is that the debate is not primarily about what scientists study in
their "research labs". It is primarily about the materialistic-naturalistic
*philosophy* that scientists bring to "the research labs" *before* they even
begin to look at the evidence.
It is about the materialistic-naturalistic *philosophy* which prevents
scientists in their "research labs" from seeing what is staring them in the
face, namely *design*:
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not
designed, but rather evolved." (Crick F.H.C., "What Mad Pursuit," 1990,
p.138)
[...]
>SJ>The general public is now becoming increasingly aware that there
>>are major problems with Darwinism,
TH>I don't think so. What widely read magazines or popular TV
>shows present these major problems? I've seen just the
>opposite.
That Tedd doesn't even see what's happening among the general public
is fine by me. That Darwinists are concerned enough to write book
reviews in major science journals against the leaders of the ID
movement, shows that they are worried. They used to mostly just ignore
their previous young-Earth creationist opposition.
>SJ>the Darwinists are deeply divided among themselves,
TH>No, the differences all seem to be relatively minor.
See above. The question is not what Tedd, a committed evolutionist
thinks are "relatively minor" differences, but what the general public
thinks.
>TH>and the critics are not all red-necked
>>Bible thumpers. Moreover some of the social implications of
>>Darwinism (e.g. rape is adaptive, etc) are being made public
>>and are being rejected as absurd.
TH>Non sequitur, rape not being adaptive is quite consistent
>with Darwinism.
And rape *being* adaptive is also quite consistent with Darwinism. The
fact is that just about *everything* (and its opposite), is quite consistent
with Darwinism!
Here is a quote by Lewontin on the unfalsifiability of Darwinism from that
same article I posted earlier:
"The first rule for any scientific hypothesis ought to be that it is at least
possible to conceive of an observation that would contradict the theory.
For what good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal logical structure
to agree with all conceivable observations, irrespective of the real structure
of the world? If scientists are going to use logically unbeatable theories
about the world, they might as well give up natural science and take up
religion. Yet is that not exactly the situation with regard to Darwinism?
The theory of evolution by natural selection states that changes in the
inherited characters of species occur, giving rise to differentiation in space
and time, because different genetical types leave different numbers of
offspring in different environments. ... Such a theory can never be falsified,
for it asserts that some environmental difference created the conditions for
natural selection of a new character. It is existentially quantified so that the
failure to find the environmental factor proves nothing, except that one has
not looked hard enough. Can one really imagine observations about nature
that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill
size? The theory of natural selection is then revealed as metaphysical rather
than scientific. Natural selection explains nothing because it explains
everything." (Lewontin R.C., "Testing the Theory of Natural Selection,"
review of Creed R., ed., "Ecological Genetics and Evolution," Blackwell:
Oxford, 1971, in Nature, Vol. 236, March 24, 1972, p.181)
>SJ>My prediction is that by the early 21st century the Darwinists
>>will be unable to continue preventing the critical discussion
>>of Darwinism's many problems in science classes.
TH>That's not much of a prediction unless you identify which of
>Darwinism's "many problems" you think aren't being discussed
>today. Can you supply specifics?
I have just cited two to Tedd, namely the origin of sex, which Dawkins said
was "probably the most baffling topic in modern evolutionary theory" and
Popper who said that "Darwinism does not really predict the evolution of
variety. It therefore cannot really explain it".
But here is another. There is little or no empirical scientific evidence for
positive natural selection:
"Despite its biological importance, positive selection is seldom observed at
work in nature. A few well-known, and constantly cited examples are
industrial melanism in moths (Kettlewell, 1955, 1956, 1958), DDT
resistance in insects and antibiotic resistance in bacteria." (Kimura M., "The
Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution," 1990, p.118)
And even that constantly cited evidence is shaky. Kettlewell's "industrial
melanism in moths" has been largely discredited, and Spetner has pointed
out that "resistance in insects and antibiotic resistance in bacteria" is
caused by a *loss* of genetic information!
Note that it does not matter that Tedd, as a relatively committed
evolutionist, does not perceive these as problems. What matters is if the
majority of the relatively uncommitted members of the general public, perceive
them as problems. In the end, the Darwinists are dependent on the general
public's opinion for funding and on the courts to enforce their monopoly.
>SJ>When that happens, there will be a need for alternative explanations
>>to gain a hearing. Those alternative explanation will need to
>>include both Intelligent Design and the various Creation models
>>(OEC & YEC). When students are exposed to the problems of
>>Darwinism, plus the evidence for Intelligent Design and Creation,
>>the majority IMHO will reject Darwinism and opt for either ID
>>ans/or one of the Creation models both. Then the damage that
>>Darwinism and Materialism has wrought on society for the last
>>140 years can start to be repaired.
TH>And you call me a "true believer"! :)
Tedd misunderstands me. I apologise if I gave the impression that I believe
this is inevitable - I don't. The Darwinists in the past have successfully
managed to exploit the Christian world's internecine disagreements among
themselves on comparatively minor matters, to remain in power by default.
It is not unlikely that it will happen again.
But the fact is that even with Darwinism's State-funded monopoly to teach
its creation story in science classes, the majority of the public still don't believe
it. So it is not unreasonable to believe that if the Darwinists were required
to lay out in the open their underlying philosophical assumptions and the
many problems with their theory, then even less of the general public
(including would-be scientists) would believe it.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Neither, lastly, would our observer be driven out of his conclusion, or
from his confidence in its truth, by being told that he knew nothing at all
about the matter. He knows enough for his argument. He knows the utility
of the end: he knows the subserviency and adaptation of the means to the
end. These points being known, his ignorance of other points, his doubts
concerning other points, affect not the certainty of his reasoning. The
consciousness of knowing little, need not beget a distrust of that which he
does know." (Paley W., "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence
and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature,"
[1802], St. Thomas Press: Houston TX, 1972, reprint, pp.5-6)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 19 2000 - 18:53:47 EDT