Reflectorites
On Sun, 30 Apr 2000 02:15:11 -0700, Troy Britain wrote:
TB>Hi all,
As this is AFAIK the first time I have seen a post from Troy, a welcome to
the Reflector to him.
I gather from his post, and from his home page at:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/troybritain/MyPage.html
that Troy is an evolutionist. But maybe Troy can tell us a bit more about
himself and what exactly his position on the creation-evolution spectrum is?
TB>Another way in which anti-evolutionists abuse their quote mining tactic,
It's interesting how evolutionists, instead of being relaxed about their
theory, knowing that if it is true, it will always win through, feel a
need to protect it, so that it is effectively immune from challenge. Thus
if an "anti-evolutionist" quotes from evolutionist writers who are
expressing some problems with or doubts about the theory, then that is
"abuse" and "quote mining"!
TB>is to quote from scientists who either hold a minority view (often a tiny
>minority), or sometimes from a scientist whose views are down right nutty,
This does happen, but comparatively rarely. Most of the quotes in
creationists literature that I have seen are is from prominent evolutionists,
like Stephen Jay Gould for example.
TB>and present them as if the views they represent are of equal weight to the
>consensus view held by the vast majority of scientists.
Maybe Troy can enlighten us all on what exactly this "consensus view held
by the vast majority of scientists" is?
TB>Often these fringe
>scientists do not even have directly relevant backgrounds to the subject
>they are being quoted on.
We have had this `priestly' argument before. Taken to its logical conclusion
this Reflector would have to shut down.
And since "the vast majority of scientists" are not evolutionary biologists,
they would not be entitled to express a view on evolution either.
It would also rule out Troy commenting on evolution because on his web page:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/troybritain/troy.htm, it would
appear that Troy himself is not even a scientist but "a printer" whose
"general science education...in public school was pretty pathetic", and who
had "never heard much of anything about evolution in public school" but who
had "read and watched TV documentaries on science, nature, and history
and absorbed a fair amount of information over the years..."
TB>Moreover the actual views of these fringe
>scientists often clash not only with mainstream science but also with those
>of the anti-evolutionists who are quoting them as authorities.
That these so-called "fringe scientists" are not creationists goes without
saying. There would be no point in quoting them if they were, as Snelling
points out:
"One more thing needs to be said. Evolutionists have often protested unfair
to quoting an evolutionist as if he were against evolution itself. So let it be
said from the outset that the vast majority of authorities quoted are
themselves ardent believers in evolution. But that is precisely the point...
The foundations of the evolutionary edifice are hardly likely to be shaken
by a collection of quotes from the many scientists who are biblical
creationists. In a court of law, an admission from a hostile witness is the
most valuable. Quoting the evolutionary palaeontologist who admits the
absence of in-between forms, or the evolutionary biologist who admits the
hopelessness of the mutation/selection mechanism, is perfectly legitimate if
the admission is accurately represented in its own right, regardless of
whether the rest of the article is full of hymns of praise to all the other
aspects of evolution." (Snelling A., "The Revised Quote Book," 1990,
inside cover).
The issue is not whether these "fringe scientists" agree with creationists on
everything, but whether their critiques of evolution are *true*.
TB>Fredrick Hoyle is a perfect example of this. Hoyle, who by all accounts is
>(or was) a brilliant astronomer, wandered out of his field to write several
>books expressing skepticism about various parts of evolutionary theory and
>promoting his own unique ideas on how the history of life on earth should be
>explained, and it is these works that anti-evolutionists mine for quotes to
>support their arguments.
Hoyle is not just an "astronomer". He was a Cambridge mathematician and
theoretical physicist who has made major contributions to astrophysics.
And as a mathematician, Hoyle is fully qualified to analyse Neo-Darwinism's
mathematical arguments, which he did to devastating effect in his recently
re-published book, "The Mathematics of Evolution," where he independently
worked out from scratch the crucial mathematical arguments of Fisher,
Haldane and Sewall Wright (upon which much of Neo-Darwinism is based),
and found major flaws in their mathematics.
TB>However what anti-evolutionists do not explain to their audiences is why A)
>this astronomers views should carry any particular weight in a discussion
>about biology and/or paleontology, or B) exactly what Hoyle's alternative
>explanation for the history of life is.
Maybe Troy should first explain why, on the basis of his own argument, his
"views should carry any particular weight in a discussion about biology
and/or paleontology"?
If we can't listen to an eminent Cambridge mathematician who has made
the study of evolution his private specialty, why should we listen to
"a painter" whose "general science education...in public school was pretty
pathetic" and whose science education appears to have been mainly from
having "read and watched TV documentaries on science, nature, and history
and absorbed a fair amount of information over the years..."?
TB>Regarding A), the anti-evolutionists penchant for quoting him (and others
>like him) is really little more an attempt at argument from authority. The
>idea being that these are respected scientists with PhD's so what they say
>on any area of science must be important.
Sounds to me like Troy is giving a pretty good rendition of the "argument
from authority" himself!
TB>Quotations of Hoyle given by
>anti-evolutionists are often prefaced by referring to him as "respected
>scientist", or "famous astronomer", in order to further build up his
>supposed authority in the eyes of their audience.
Creationist books are mainly written for ordinary people who may not
know who Hoyle is. But I agree that creationists should be sparing with
their adjectives. On my own quote page I simply state what his name and
position is (or was), e.g. "(Hoyle, Fred [former Professor of Astronomy,
Cambridge University], "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn
Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, p.10)".
TB>The fact that Hoyle is an astronomer certainly does not disqualify him from
>having an opinion on other areas of science, nor does it disqualify him from
>possibly making valuable contributions to them. There have been many
>scientists (and even non-scientists) who have done so in the past. On the
>other hand the fact that he has a PhD and is noted in astronomy does not
>make him any better qualified to do so than any other
>non-biologist/paleontologist to comment on these fields.
See above on Troy not being able to comment either on evolution, under his
own self-refuting criteria!
TB> Unless they can
>show that Hoyle has distinguished himself by demonstrating his mastery of
>these fields (despite his lack of formal background in them) and has been
>acknowledged by scientists in those fields as having done so (and I submit
>that he has not), then anti-evolutionists may just as well quote their own
>views on evolution as those of Hoyle.
There is a catch-22 here, which Troy no doubt is well aware of. Since
evolutionary biology is dominated by philosophical materialist-naturalists,
no one these days could demonstrate his mastery of evolutionary biology
and be "acknowledged by scientists in those fields as having done so"
unless he himself was a naturalistic evolutionist like them! Floyd Hamilton
wrote the following in 1931, and it is even more the case today:
"In the first place, what is the pathway to recognition in scientific circles?
Has that pathway any bearing on the belief of scientists in evolution? What
we have to say concerns particularly biology and geology, though it is true
more or less of all other sciences. At the outset we must call attention to
the fact that the body of scientists is a more or less closed order. In saying
this we do not mean that scientists are trying to keep other people out of
their ranks, or that new men are not constantly entering the ranks of
science. What is meant is that there is only a certain pathway to scientific
standing, and that unless one travels along the fixed pathway it is almost
impossible to gain recognition as a scientist. To gain recognition as ai
scientist, a man must in some way add to the sum total of human
knowledge in the particular field of science in which he carries on his
labours. This seems a perfectly fair requirement, and doubtless any man
could gain scientific standing, regardless of where he laboured, or what his
Previous training was, were he to meet this requirement. The difficulty
comes in the preliminary steps which a man must take before he is in a
position to make scientific discoveries.
How may a man become a recognized investigator? There is the key to the
whole problem of the attitude of scientific men toward evolution. No man
can become a scientist in biological, geological, physical or chemical lines,
without adequate technical training, and no man can become a recognized
scientist without being in a position where he can conduct research work.
The first point requires proper teachers, and the second point necessitates
adequate financial backing to supply the laboratory, equipment and
supplies, and the means of livelihood for the worker. Theoretically a man
could get the proper training through his own efforts in reading books and
conducting experiments, but practically almost all scientists must get their
training in the schools and colleges, and, because of lack of funds, conduct
their experiments in the laboratories provided by the universities or various
as "Foundations" established for the purpose of research.
Now naturally no man can become an instructor in a college or university,
or secure a position as research worker in the laboratories of some
Foundation, without passing through the educational system of the colleges
and universities, and receiving the endorsement of men in charge of the
various departments. Now let me ask a frank question of scientists. What
chance do they think a man who was not an evolutionist would have of
securing a position as instructor or fellow in biology or geology in any
reputable institution at the present time? Practically none! Before a man
could secure the endorsement of men in charge of the various departments,
he would have to do special work in some department and win the
approval of the men directly over him by the quality of work done. In most
colleges to-day even instructors must have done considerable post-
graduate study before they can secure a position. Now any man who spent
several years in studying biology or geology without becoming an
evolutionist would be considered either "queer" or "dumb" by his teachers,
and would never be recommended for the position of instructor or for a
fellowship in those lines. Unless he concealed his anti-evolutionary views,
an opponent of evolution would have almost no chance of ever getting into
a position where he could do research work in biology or geology, and so
would never have a chance to obtain recognition in scientific circles. In
making this statement it is not charged that there is conscious
discrimination against anti-evolutionists by the scientists in charge of the
departments. Probably they are almost entirely unconscious of such
discrimination, yet that does not make the discrimination any the less real."
(Hamilton F.E., "The Basis of Evolutionary Faith," 1931, pp.25-27)
TB>Regarding B), the other thing most anti-evolutionists do not usually talk
>about is what Hoyle alternative views are. I submit that the reason behind
>this omission is that they themselves consider them to be at the very least
>unacceptable, and know that if they told their audiences about Hoyle's ideas
>then all their building up of Hoyle as an authority would come crashing
>down.
Not really. Troy seems to think that "anti-evolutionists" are all pretty
stupid and don't know what Hoyle's other views are. All that "anti-evolutionists"
are interested in is Hoyle's critique of Darwinism. They probably couldn't
care less about his views on other things.
TB>Anti-evolutionists know that their audience, usually made up of
>mostly those who wish to have their pre-existing skepticism about evolution
>confirmed, will find comfort in having a "respected scientist" quoted as
>agreeing with their views. However they also know that if they tell their
>audience that this "respected scientist" also believes that - insects might
>come from outer space, and that they may be as intelligent as humans but are
>hiding this fact from us, and that the changes in life of earth are the
>result of a (natural) alien intelligence which has been raining mutation
>causing viruses down on the earth throughout geologic time - that their
>audience might not find the company to be quite so good.
They might have read Hoyle & Wickramasinghe's, "Evolution from Space,"
for themselves and find out they are not saying that the above *was* the
case, but are speculating on it as a *possibility*.
Indeed, what about the Nobel prize-winning Darwinist Francis Crick, co-
discoverer of the structure of DNA, who proposed the theory (along with
eminent Darwinist Leslie Orgel), which had originally been suggested by
another eminent Darwinst, J.B.S. Haldane, in a journal edited by yet another
leading Darwinist, Carl Sagan, that life on Earth was seeded as bacteria
by aliens from another planet:
"In this book I explore a variant of panspermia which Leslie Orgel and I
suggested a few years ago. To avoid damage, the microorganisms are
supposed to have traveled in the head of an unmanned spaceship sent to
earth by a higher civilization which had developed elsewhere some billions
of years ago. The spaceship was unmanned so that its range would be as
great as possible. Life started here when these organisms were dropped
into the primitive ocean and began to multiply. We called our idea Directed
Panspermia, and published it quietly in Icarus, a space journal edited by
Carl Sagan. It is not entirely new. J.B.S. Haldane had made a passing
reference to it as early as 1954 and others have considered it since
then, though not in as much detail as we did." (Crick F., "Life Itself,"
1981, pp.15-16).
TB>Case in point, I was personally present when an acquaintance of mine asked
>Duane Gish about Hoyle's alternative views immediately after Gish had used
>this tactic in a talk he gave to students at Azusa Pacific University
>(2-11-99). Gish's response to us was something to the effect that Hoyle's
>ideas were "silly". But in front of the students he was a "Sir Fred Hoyle
>the famous British astronomer".
Well he *is* "Sir Fred Hoyle the famous British astronomer", irrespective
of whether some of his other ideas were "silly"!
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Evidently nature can no longer be seen as matter and energy alone. Nor
can all her secrets be unlocked with the keys of chemistry and physics,
brilliantly successful as these two branches of science have been in our
century. A third component is needed for any explanation of the world that
claims to be complete. To the powerful theories of chemistry and physics
must be added a late arrival: a theory of information. Nature must be
interpreted as matter, energy, and information." (Campbell J.,
"Grammatical Man: Information, Entropy, Language and Life," [1982],
Penguin Books: Harmondsworth, Middlesex UK, 1984, reprint, p.16)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 01 2000 - 17:41:03 EDT