Reflectorites
On Wed, 3 May 2000 01:27:13 -0700, Troy Britain wrote:
I apologise for the delay. I thought I had posted this. I have had to
break it into two parts because of its size.
[...]
>SJ>>As this is AFAIK the first time I have seen a post from Troy, a
>welcome to
>the Reflector to him.
TB>Thanks, but I've been subscribed to the reflector for almost two years (and
>this my second time). I don't blame you for not knowing this however since
>I don't contribute very frequently.
OK.
>SJ>>I gather from his post, and from his home page that Troy is an
>evolutionist.
TB>I accept evolution (common descent with modification via, largely though
>not exclusively, natural selection) as being the best scientific explanation
>for the empirical evidence of which I am familiar.
OK. Maybe Troy would say: 1) how "largely" does he think that "natural
selection" is an "explanation for the empirical evidence"; and 2) what are
the other "explanations for the empirical evidence"?
>SJ>>But maybe Troy can tell us a bit more about himself and what exactly
>his position on the creation-evolution spectrum is?
TB>Why is this important?
I did not say this was "important". But the rules of this Reflector, which
everyone receives on joining, and recently reposted by the List manager
Terry Gray state (inter alia):
"Please "sign" your name to your message. If you have never posted to the
group before, please tell us a little bit about yourself."
Why I personally ask new posters to let us know who they are and where they
are coming from is to help minimise misunderstanding of what they are
saying. This is particularly important for evolutionists because it
includes both theistic and atheistic evolution.
TB>Do you need to know where I fall in the spectrum so
>that you can know whether or not to listen to what I say?
I try to listen to everything evolutionists say. The only evolutionists (and
creationists too for that matter) that I tend to ignore are those who just
post mindless one-liners, or who are too abusive.
TB>I suspect that
>the usual motive behind this sort of question from creationists is to
>determine whether I should be theologically corrected (if I claim to be a
>theistic evolutionist), or ignored as a pawn of the Devil (if I claim to be
>an agnostic/atheist evolutionist).
See above for my "motive".
Since theistic evolutionists (and agnostic/atheist evolutionist too for that
matter) do make theological statements in this debate I will sometimes
challenge those statements.
As for claiming that someone is "a pawn of the Devil" I do not believe that
such statements are productive in a debate.
>TB>>Another way in which anti-evolutionists abuse their quote mining
>tactic,
>SJ>>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.
TB>If the debate were strictly a scientific one amongst scientists AND the
>scientifically literate, then we could be "relaxed" about the future of
>evolutionary theory. Unfortunately the actual debate is as much to do with
>politics and religion as it is with science.
An interesting admission. This is what Johnson believes too.
TB>Even more unfortunately many
>if not most people (in the US at least) are not what I would call
>scientifically literate (no doubt I will be attacked as some sort of elitist
>for saying this),
It's not so much "elitist" but IMHO *wrong*. In the US, like in Australia
and other modern Western societies, everyone has been constantly exposed
to evolutionary claims in schools and the media, since at least the 1950's.
The reason the general public reject evolution IMHO is not because they
don't understand enough about it, but because they *do* understand
enough about it!
The reason that a large percentage of the general *public* (not just
churchgoers) believe they were created by God is that, while it is
admittedly hard to imagine, the alternative, that they were created by a
mindless, purposeless process, just seems so fantastic that they *can't*
believe it. Personally I doubt that any evolutionists really believe it, except
maybe Nietzsche and he went mad believing it.
As an example, when my two children were in high school, I was in my
`theistic evolutionist' phase and I told them that if evolution was true, it
was just the way God did it. But they reported to me that when the teacher
tried to teach them evolution, even though most of the kids did not come
from religious backgrounds, they rejected what he was saying as simply
absurd. The evolutionists big problem is that they have taught kids to be
sceptical and mistrust claims based on authority, never realising they would
apply those same principles to evolution!
Also people realise when they are not being given the whole story. The
evolutionists think that if they step up their propaganda, they will win more
people over. But people know there is a controversy and they know the
evolutionists are evading it. The only way that evolutionists can win back
some respect in the eyes of the general public is to come clean with the
public, lay all their hidden philosophical assumptions on the table, admit the
problems with the theory, and allow critics to have their say. Then, and
only then, would evolutionists have a hope of winning the hearts and minds
of the majority of people.
TB> nor is science particularly high on many peoples list of
>priorities.
This is IMHO wromg too. One only has to point to the vast amount of
taxpayer's money spent on science, continual high ratings of nature
documentaries on TV, as well as the enormous amount of interest in
scientific topics in the media, which often make front page news (e.g. the
infamous Mars rock).
TB>As for the claim of evolutionists making evolution immune from
>challenge, this is little more than demagoguery that doesn't warrant a
>response.
That's OK but while evolutionists continue to dismiss such criticisms as not
worthy of a response, the public will increasingly regard them as evading
the issues, and evolution will continue to lose ground while creation/ID will
continue to gain ground.
>SJ>>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>It is not the mere quoting of someone that is the problem. It is the
>quoting is out of context (textual or historical), and/or the leaving out
>of pertinent information about the source of the quote (such as their
>holding to bizarre or minority views).
As I have said before, if evolutionists think that one of my quotes are out
of context, they are perfectly free to supply the context and win the
argument.
BTW I notice that when it suits him, Troy isn't adverse to loosely quoting
Hoyle and what Gish is alleged to have said about Hoyle!
TB>In this particular case, given
>Hoyle's criticism of not only natural selection but also much of the
>evidence for common descent, I don t think it would be fair to characterize
>him, if that is Stephan's intent, as an "evolutionist writer". The subtitle
>to his book _Evolution from Space_ is after all _A Theory of Cosmic
>Creationism_.
This is simply false. Hoyle is an evolutionist who has consistently criticised
creationism. He is just not a *Darwinian* evolutionist.
Evolutionists often regale with glee that when Hoyle's co-author Chandra
Wickramasinghe was called by the creationist side as a witness against
evolution, he repudiated creationism.
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe are some sort of pantheists. That is they regard
the universe as God, i.e. it has its own intelligence (one of their books is
called "The Intelligent Universe"), and created itself. As such they are
squarely in the broad evolutionist camp.
>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 <<
>SJ>>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 I have found that a significant number (practically all) of these are
>taken out of historical or textual context in one way or another.
Unless Troy can state up front what accepted criteria of historical and
literary criticism (i.e. not unduly biased by evolutionary preconceptions), he
uses to determine whether a quote is in context or not, his claims are just
circular.
The fact is that on this Reflector, whenever an "out-of-context quote"
claim is made by evolutionists, they never have produced any such
objective evidence. If they did, they would win the point easily.
And anyway, if the quote is incorrect, they could just debate the point itself
without worrying about whether it is out-of-context. Again, they would
win the point.
The debate is coming out into the open now and such attempts to
disqualify arguments before they can even be discussed, will be seen by the
general public as evading the issue.
TB>That scientists talk about "problems" with some particular hypothesis or
>theory is hardly surprising or problematic in any way. It is big part of
>their "job". They often refer to problems and usually then to possible
>solutions to said problems that can (hopefully) be tested against the
>available evidence. Anti-evolutionists frequently quote the statement of
>the problems leaving out the suggested solutions that often follow them.
It is also the "job" of the critic to highlight problems with the theory being
critiqued. It is up to the supporters of that theory to put their side of the
question, including their "suggested solutions".
Mind you, evolutionists are pretty good at making one-sided statements
about their creationist/ID and anti-evolutionist opposition. Troy's `hatchet
job' on Hoyle was a case in point.
>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. <<
>SJ>>Maybe Troy can enlighten us all on what exactly this "consensus view
>held by the vast majority of scientists" is? <<
TB>Anyone serious about wanting to know what the consensus is within the
>scientific community could easily find out by consulting the relevant
>literature. It is hardly a secret.
I note that Troy evades the question. If he knows what is "the consensus
view held by the vast majority of scientists" why doesn't he just *say* what
it is, instead of just referring us to some vague "relevant literature"?
TB>Which brings us to another tactic used
>by anti-evolutionists. They exaggerate minor disagreements amongst
>scientists about various details of evolutionary theory into mutually
>exclusive camps, and then to point to them and say, "see they can't even
>decide what form of evolutionary theory is the correct one, they're probably
>both wrong".
This sound just like damage control by trying to put the best possible spin
on it, that we are all accustomed to see in the media by embattled
politicians and corporate executives. When the *leaders* of evolution
today like Gould and Lewontin vs Dawkins, Maynard Smith and Dennett
publicly attack each other's views on fundamental issues in the ordinary
media (e.g. the New York Times), rather than discuss them through the
normal processes of academic debate like scientific journals, then the
general public knows that this is much more than "minor
disagreements...about various details."
And Darwinist evolutionary theory has been going now for 140 years. Why
are they *still* having substantially the same "disagreements...about
various details of evolutionary theory"? This is good evidence that they are
simply on the wrong track:
"Suppose for a moment that Darwin's theory of natural selection is a
mistaken view about the origin and development of life. If so, wouldn't it
be reasonable to conclude that scientists themselves would become
increasingly aware of this and publicly state their findings? After all, how
could scientists in different disciplines not say something if they were
becoming more aware of the absence of hard evidence in support of
Darwin's theory and were face to face with scientific data that pointed to a
completely different theory-one that suggests the world was designed and
exists for a purpose? Anyone who reads the private and published reports
of evolutionary scientists, especially since the 1980s, cannot help but notice
that there are many who admit they doubt the whole paradigm of
evolutionary belief." (Ankerberg J. & Weldon J., "Rational Inquiry & the
Force of Scientific Data: Are New Horizons Emerging?," in Moreland J.P.,
ed., "The Creation Hypothesis," 1994, pp.270-271)
>TB>>Often these fringe scientists do not even have directly relevant
>backgrounds to the subject they are being quoted on. <<
>SJ>>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. <<
TB>As Stephen has taken great pains to point out, I am hardly in a position to
>be arguing for credentialism, and I should hope that I made it clear in my
>statement that I am not doing so. If anyone, besides Stephen, doesn't
>understand my position on this I would be happy to elaborate.
See my post to Don where I pointed out Troy's attack on Hoyle included
references to his alleged lack of the right "background", as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[...]
Second, Troy twice referred to Hoyle as not having the right
"background":
"Often these fringe scientists do not even have directly relevant
backgrounds to the subject they are being quoted on...." and "Unless
they can show that Hoyle has distinguished himself by demonstrating
his mastery of these fields (despite his lack of formal background
in them)".
[...]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>SJ>>It would also rule out Troy commenting on evolution because on his web
>page 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>I'm glad to see that Stephen is concentrating on "*the issues*" and
>avoiding ad hominem attacks.
How can just simply repeating what Troy himself said on his own web page
about himself be an "ad hominem attack"? I did not press the point and
ridicule Troy, which I could have done if I was intent on making an "ad
hominem attack". I was simply pointing out that *on Troy's own criteria*,
he also would be ineligible for commenting on evolution.
>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. <<
>SJ>>That these so-called "fringe scientists" are not creationists goes
>without saying. There would be no point in quoting them if they were <<
TB>Though they often are anti-evolutionists or at least anti-Darwinian
>(anti-evolutionists often conflate evolution with Darwin's mechanism and
>thus see a critique of one as a critique of both). Others while they may
>accept evolution, and even natural selection, are off in their own worlds
>grinding an axe with regards to some particular subject.
I don't necessarily disagree with this. I am not interested in what they
believe "in their own worlds". It is their critique of evolution that I am
interested in. And I don't accept uncritically all their critiques of evolution
either.
TB>Snelling>SJ>"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." <<
TB>The "foundations" of evolutionary theory are not going to be shaken by ANY
>amount of argument by quotation regardless of who is quoted, because
>scientific debates are not settled by how many disembodied quotes one can
>rack up in a row for or against something.
I am glad Troy thinks that. It will make the creationist/ID job easier!
But to give him a hint: it is not necessary in order to defeat evolution's
monopoly power as Western society's State-established `creation-myth',
that every last committed evolutionist's mind be changed.
Despite decades of enjoying a monopoly in schools, colleges and
universities, naturalistic evolution is still believed by only a small minority
(10% or less in the USA) of the general public.
Therefore, in a democratic society, evolution relies very heavily on
coercive State power for its monopoly to continue. So all that is needed for
now is for evolution to lose the support of the government, the law and the
media. Without its monopolistic power to coerce children to be taught its
`creation-story' at the taxpayer's expense, people will become free to
believe or not to believe evolution based on *all* the evidence.
This is well on the way to happening. The young-Earth creationist failed in
court because they are obviously Bible-based, and this has been deemed to
infringe on the clause prohibiting the State from establishing a religion. But
the Intelligent Design movement is not Bible-based (some of its members
and adherents are agnostics), and its critique of evolution is philosophical
and evidential.
TB>How it is that anti-evolutionists think that listing quotations is a form
>of rigorous intellectual argument is beyond me. No need to actually
>understand the evidence or the theories, heck, no need to think at all.
>Just read the disembodied quotes (and the anti-evolutionist spin put on
>them) and you to can be expert enough to denounce the entire scientific
>community as pack of incompetent fools.
How is one ever to state "evidence" or "theories" without quoting from
what its exponents have written. Scientific journals are *full* of such
quotes and references.
And as I pointed out, Troy is not adverse to loosely quoting stuff about
Hoyle when it suits him!
Besides, this is a *debate* and the only way it can proceed without
degenerating into unsubstantiated assertions of mere opinion is for excerpts
from leading evolutionists' and creationist/IDer's writings to be posted.
>SJ>>The issue is not whether these "fringe scientists" agree with
>creationists on everything, but whether their critiques of evolution are
>*true*. <<
TB>My experience is that anti-evolutionists welcome just about ANY critique of
>evolution regardless of its source.
This is a misleading generalisation. While some young-Earth creationists
have admittedly been too eager to post less well-substantiated quotes from
lesser lights on the evolution side, they represent only a small and
decreasing minority of anti-evolutionist quotes.
If evolutionists keep claiming this as though it represents the *majority* of
anti-evolutionist quotes, then they will continue to lose ground in the eyes
of the general public.
TB>They then usually spin the critique as
>if it carries equal weight to the consensus views of the experts in the
>particular field.
Troy still hasn't told us just what exactly *is* this "consensus views of the
experts"!
TB>Do I really have to comment on the logical implications of Stephen's
>statements? Are we really to believe that all the acknowledged experts are
>either lying or stupid,
I don't claim that *any* of "the acknowledged experts are either lying or
stupid". I do claim that they almost all have adopted a materialistic-
naturalistic *philosophy* which has caused them to interpret the evidence,
to varying degrees, wrongly.
That this is possible is stated by no less than Darwin himself in the Origin
of Species:
"Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this
volume under the form of an abstract, I by no means expect to convince
experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts
ALL VIEWED, DURING A LONG COURSE OF YEARS, FROM A POINT OF VIEW directly
opposite to mine." (Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection," [1872], 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.456. My emphasis).
So it is indeed possible for an entire generation of "acknowledged experts"
to be wrong, because their "minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all
viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view" which is
wrong.
And especially when they have adopted rules of evidence which prevents
critics who don't hold that materialistic-naturalistic "point of view" from
being heard.
TB>and that the guy to thinks bugs may be intelligent
>space aliens has the killer critique that the experts couldn t or wouldn't
>see?
For starters, I don't claim there is any one "killer critique" of evolution.
Evolution's case is cumulative and based on circumstantial evidence, and
the case against it is also cumulative and based on circumstantial counter-
evidence.
Hoyle's arguments, particularly his mathematical ones, are a valuable part
of that cumulative and circumstantial counter-evidence against evolution
It is one of the things that has made science so successful is that often the
critic who has an unorthodox perspective can see true things that "experts
couldn't or wouldn't see".
>SJ>>Hoyle is not just an "astronomer". <<
TB>There is nothing "just" about being an astronomer.<s>
That is the way Troy put it. He did not say that Hoyle was a *Professor*
of Astronomy at *Cambridge University*.
>SJ>>He was a Cambridge mathematician and theoretical physicist who has
>made major contributions to astrophysics. <<
TB>I do not question that.
Troy didn't mention it either!
>SJ>>And as a mathematician, Hoyle is fully qualified to analyse
>Neo-Darwinism's mathematical arguments <<
TB>Being mathematically competent in and of itself no more qualifies him to
>critique evolution than it would qualify a mathematically competent
>biologist to critique Big Bang cosmology
Mathematics is probably the one area in science in which it doesn't matter
whether one is a biologist or a cosmologist. A "mathematically competent
biologist" *can* validly "critique" the mathematical arguments of "Big
Bang cosmology" and a mathematically competent cosmologist can validly
critique the mathematical arguments of neo-Darwinist biology.
TB>(something else I believe Hoyle doesn't care for).
Hoyle (along with a number of leading physicists) advanced a counter
theory to the "Big Bang" (which is BTW Hoyle's name for it) theory called
the "Steady State" theory. Hoyle's theory was eventually proved wrong,
but no one AFAIK claimed that his "Steady State" theory must be wrong
because he had "alternative views".
Cosmology is a *real* science which works from the *evidence* a critic
puts up, unlike Darwinism which tries to discover some `dirt' by which it
can discredit the critic personally so he no longer is heard.
[continued...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lipid formation again could have been preceded by the appearance of
their constituents: fatty acids, glycerol and phosphate. While the abiogenic
reaction between these three seems plausible, we have trouble with the
formation of membranogenic lipids: no long-chain (C6-C18) linear
(nonbranched) fatty acids have been synthesized in electric discharge
reactions, although they would be indispensable for prebiotic membrane
formation." (Maynard Smith J. & Szathmary E., "The Major Transitions in
Evolution," W.H. Freeman: Oxford UK, 1995, p.32).
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 08 2000 - 17:23:40 EDT