In a message dated 5/1/00 5:41:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
sejones@iinet.net.au writes:
<<
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"!
*******
It is 'quote mining' when the quotes are used in such a way as to make it
appear as though there is some big doubt - out of context quoting is the
favored method. They are used to make people think 'well, if that
evolutionist has doubts, the ToE MUST be in trouble!' That is abuse.
*********
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.
************
Yes - as outlined above. He even says so.
**************
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?
*********
Haven't you heard? The vast majority of scientists are not religious zealots
that will deny and reject anything that threatens their literalist
interpretation of some religious tract.
************
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.
**************
Expessing an opinion is one thing - providing that, when it is supposed to be
a scientific one, it is based on factual information.
************
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..."
***********
It would certainly rule you out, wouldn't it Steve?
***********
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*.
***********
So, why do creationists feel the need to use quotes for the bulk of many of
their arguments ANYWAY? If, as they seem to think, 'true' science is on
their side? It is political rhetoric Steve. Too bad you can't see that.
*************
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.
******
Oh good - and his expertise on fossils and DNA comes from...?
********
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.
***********
Oh yes, of course he did.... Math trumps all.... At least in anti-evolution
land. What about when observation contradicts math? Which wins then, Steve?
************
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"?
************
He hasn't made any.
***********
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..."?
*********
Maybe because that mathemnatician is not a biologist? I cannot think of a
single area of science - except evolution - in which non-specialists and
laymen feel that their opinions (informed or otherwise) not only have merit,
but in fact have the ability to 'disprove' this or that. It is really a
phenomenon of some sort...
************
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!
*********
Having read many of your posts, I would call that a pot-kettle situation...
*********
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)".
************
Oh good - do YOU point out that he thinks creationism is silly? That he
thinks what Troy pointed out - that insects and bacteria come from outer
space? If not, why not?
*************
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!
************
You should talk....
*********
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!
**********
Oh boy!!! That philosophy we are all supposed to bound to uphold, despite
never even hearing baout it until anti-evolutionists claimed that we all
ascribe to it! Amazing insights!
**********************
Floyd Hamilton
wrote the following in 1931, and it is even more the case today:
****snip early version of the 'conspiracy' bull****
(Hamilton F.E., "The Basis of Evolutionary Faith," 1931, pp.25-27)
***************
Hmmm... Well, I guess creationists know everything about everything!
**************
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.
***********
Exactly. Yet, they feel it necessary to point out that Gould is a Marxist...
Dawkins an atheist... etc... I guess they don't want their target audience
to see that their 'supporters' have some pretty nutty ideas themselves....
************
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*.
**************
So it is ok then... Phew! I wonder - do they give any calculations on the
probability of their scenarios being possible?
***************
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).
*************
Oh, well, it must be true then. But remember - Sagan was an atheist, so that
taints everything he said.
*************
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"!
**************
No matter - as long as he said something that makes it appear that evolution
is in trouble, he is tops with the anti crowd!
[...]
Steve
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 02 2000 - 14:42:36 EDT