Reflectorites
On Wed, 3 May 2000 01:27:13 -0700, Troy Britain wrote:
[...continued]
TB>While mathematics is certainly important to all sciences
>it is not all there is.
Who said it was? But if a theory which is strongly based on mathematics
(as neo-Darwinism is) has major flaws in that mathematical base, then the
whole theory is in big trouble.
>>SJ>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>Again, the experts in the field were, and are, too stupid to see this, they
>needed Hoyle to come along and straighten them out.
It's interesting how Troy argues. I thought from Don's praise of Troy's
large book library and his vast amount of photocopies from scientific
journals, that Troy would be a welcome change in being an evolutionist
who actually argued the *facts*.
But instead all we get is this same old weak type of subjective argument
from authority which doesn't seem to understand that that is *precisely*
what science is about. Science is *based* on the premise that the existing
experts can often be wrong and an outsider is needed to "come along and
straighten them out".
TB>Now he needs to work on
>those silly entomologists who keep insisting that bugs really are from earth
>and aren't as smart as people.
It is also interesting how Troy just ignored the fact that, as I pointed out,
respected scientists like Nobel laureate Crick and Orgel (not to mention
one of the founders of neo-Darwinism, Haldane) believe that bacteria came
from space!
Also, Hoyle did not say that each individual insect was "as smart as people"
but questioned whether *collectively* they might be:
"There is a curious variant of the first possibility. Could the insects
themselves be the intelligence much higher than our own? We are so
conditioned to thinking that the intelligence of a species can be exemplified
by an individual member that it is hard to assess a situation in which each
individual might show little intelligence, but in which the combined
aggregate of individuals might show much. Yet it is so in our own brains,
where no individual neuron can be said to display intelligence but in which
the aggregate of neurons constitutes exactly what we understand by
intelligence." (Hoyle F. & Wickramasinghe C., "Evolution from Space,"
1983, reprint, pp.138-139)
I don't necessarily agree with this, but I would not rule it out.
BTW if Troy was a bit more up on Hoyle's he would know that Hoyle only
believes that *genes* came from space, which is not all that unorthodox,
and may indeed be the majority view among origin of life researchers. I
thought I would check which of Hoyle's books Troy has in his large library
so I could refer Troy to them. But guess what? On Troy's complete science
book listing, which Don referred me to at:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/troybritain/Scilib.html, Troy
does not have *any* of Hoyle's books listed! Here are the Hi's to the Hs's
in Troy's complete list of his library:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hirsch, E.D. Jr. - et al., The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy
(1988), Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Mass, 586
Hogan, Peter (Editor), Creationism, Scientists Respond (1991),
Australian Skeptics Inc. Victoria, Australia, 41
Hogue, Charles L., Insects of the Los Angeles Basin (1993),
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 446
Horner, John R. & Gorman, James, Digging Dinosaurs (1988),
Harper & Row Publishers, N.Y., 210
Hotton, Nicholas III, The Evidence of Evolution (1968),
American Heritage Publishing Co., Inc. N.Y., N.Y., 160
Howell, Clark F., Early Man (1965), Time-Life books, New York,
200
Hsu, Kenneth J., The Great Dying (1986), Ballantine Books, N.Y.,
288
--------------------------------------------------------------
Just to be sure I also checked Troy's sub-page "On creationism, Anti-
creationism & other Pseudosciences", at:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/troybritain/anticreationism.ht
m but there was no reference to any of Hoyle's books there either.
Doesn't it strike others as extraordinary that the one anti-evolutionist Troy
chose to attack, he doesn't have listed even *one* of his books?
>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. <<
>SJ>>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"? <<
TB>A) The above question is clearly based on a false characterization of my
>argument.
>
>B) I am not claiming expert status for my opinions.
First, if Troy is not claiming in *some* sense to have "expert status" for his
"opinions", then what was Don's point then about Troy's "competence"
based on his large library, his researches, his photocopies and his
associations with biologists?
Second, if Troy is not claiming in *any* sense to have "expert status" for
his "opinions", then why should we take any notice of what he says? Troy
in his `hatchet job' attack on Hoyle did not quote from other experts (apart
from hearsay), so he came across as "one who speaks with authority, and
not as the scribes."
Third, if Troy is not claiming in *any* sense to have "expert status" for his
"opinions", then what exactly is his argument against Hoyle and other anti-
creationists not having "expert status" for their "opinions"?
TB>C) I am not claiming that virtually the entire scientific community is
>wrong. Those that do I think necessarily carry a heavier burden of evidence
>for their claims.
Who *is* "claiming that virtually the entire scientific community is
wrong"? Troy still hasn't told us what what exactly the "consensus view
held by the vast majority of scientists" (i.e. "virtually the entire
scientific community") is.
>SJ>>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>Again, I'm glad Stephan is avoiding ad hominem attacks.
See above. I quoted only what Troy said about himself. I did not press the
point in an ad hominem way which I could easily have done if I wanted to.
If I said something about myself on my own web page, my critics would be
perfectly entitled to hold me accountable to it, by quoting it back to me.
Troy evidently likes to dish it out to anti-Darwinists like Hoyle, but
when an anti-Darwinist makes the mildest form of so-called `ad hominem'
back to him (i.e. just quoting his own words describing himself) he cries
`foul'!
>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. <<
>SJ>>Sounds to me like Troy is giving a pretty good rendition of the
>"argument from authority" himself! <<
TB>If anyone besides Stephen believes that I am doing this I would be more
>than happy to clarify my position for them.
See above. Troy's whole claim was based on the fact that Hoyle is not an
acknowledged authority in evolution and is therefore either: 1) wrong; 2)
not entitled to offer an opinion; or 3) both.
If Troy does not think that is an "argument from authority" then I would
like to see his definition of what an "argument from authority" is.
>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. <<
>SJ>>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>I'm glad you agree on this, however leaving out his "alternative" ideas is
>in my opinion misleading by omission.
I am only concerned with Hoyle's views on *evolution*. I give the book
reference so others can look up his views on other subjects if they like.
Indeed, on another of my web pages I list all Hoyle's books that I own:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/cebooksg.html#H
Hoyle F., "The Intelligent Universe," Michael Joseph: London, 1983.
Hoyle F., "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis
TN, 1999.
Hoyle F. & Wickramasinghe C., "Cosmic Life-Force," J.M. Dent & Sons:
London, 1988.
Hoyle F. & Wickramasinghe C., "Evolution from Space," [1981], Paladin:
London, 1983, reprint.
Hoyle F. & Wickramasinghe C., "Lifecloud: The Origin of Life in the
Universe," [1978], Sphere Books: London, 1979.
Hoyle F. & Wickramasinghe C., "Our Place in the Cosmos: The Unfinished
Revolution," [1993], Phoenix: London, 1996, reprint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
If people are interested in Hoyle's "`alternative' ideas" they can
easily get them from a library and read them for themselves. BTW
Hoyle has changed his "`alternative' ideas" over the years and now
some of them (e.g. genes from space) are becoming more orthodox
Besides, in science it is (or should) be *irrelevant* what one's
views are on other topic. What is important for science is only
one's views on *that* topic that one is theorising about.
That Troy seems to think that the truth of what one says on one
topic is dependent on what one thinks on other topics, especially
if that thinking involves `alternative' ideas". This sounds
more like the worst features of religion or politics than science.
TB>[Snip another ad hominem attack that I'm glad Stephen is avoiding now.]
See above. Talk about "the pot calling the kettle, black"!
>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. <<
>SJ>>There is a catch-22 here, which Troy no doubt is well aware of. Since
>evolutionary biology is dominated by philosophical materialist-naturalists
TB>As opposed to other sciences where philosophical
>immaterialist-supernaturalists dominate the thinking?
I take it that Troy acknowledges that "evolutionary biology is dominated
by philosophical materialist-naturalists"?
>>SJ>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! <<
TB>More demagoguery.
That's interesting because that is what *Troy* was claiming!
[...]
>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. <<
>SJ>>Not really. Troy seems to think that "anti-evolutionists" are all
>pretty stupid and don't know what Hoyle's other views are. <<
TB>So it is your contention that the thousands that fill the pews at
>creationist events every year are for the most part quite familiar with
>Hoyle and his ideas? You know that isn't true Stephen. Most people have
>never heard of him let alone what his odd-ball ideas are.
I would assume that among those creationists who were committed enough to
"fill the pews at creationist events every year" a large number would be
aware of Hoyle's `alternative ideas".
>SJ>>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>And people having knowledge of his other views wouldn't effect their
>reception of his ideas on other things? Come on.
Troy does not seem to realise that creationists are well aware that the
evolutionists (and Hoyle is an evolutionist) who they quote as critical
of aspects of evolution, may hold strange ideas on other topic. Many of
them believe in Darwinian evolution for starters! :-) It is not as though
the evolutionists quoted are applying for church membership.
>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. <<
>SJ>>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*. <<
TB>Did you miss the "might" in my statement? Here is what Hoyle and
>Wickramasinghe actually say in one of their books:
>
>"The situation points to one of two possibilities. Either we are dealing
>with an overt plan invented by an intelligence considerably higher than our
>own, an intelligence which has foreseen all our chemicals an flamethrowers,
>or the insects have already experienced selection pressure against
>intelligences of at least our level in many other environments elsewhere in
>the universe.
>
>There is a curious variant of the first possibility. Could the insects
>themselves be the intelligence much higher that our own? We are so
>conditioned to thinking that the intelligence of a species can be
>exemplified by an individual member that it is hard to asses a situation in
>which each individual might show little intelligence, but in which the
>combined aggregate of individuals might show much. Yet it is so in our own
>brains, where no individual neuron can be said to display intelligence but
>in which the aggregate of neurons constitutes exactly what we understand by
>intelligence.
>
>The static nature of insect societies goes against this thinking. If an
>enormous intelligence inhabits the beehives of the world, we might expect to
>see evidence of its presents. But this may again be to endow an opponent
>with our own restless characteristics. Perhaps concealment is an essential
>tactic. Perhaps the intelligence is static because it understands the
>dictum of sagacious lawyers: `When your case is going well, say nothing.'"
>(Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981, p.127)
And as I quoted, note they are talking about "the insects themselves", i.e.
*collectively*, not: "insects...may be as intelligent as humans" which
could mean indvividual insects.
I hasten to add again that I don't agree with H&W on this point, but at
least I state their argument accurately.
>SJ>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 <<
[...]
TB>Panspermia for the original seeding of life on earth is a respectable if
>minority view, though Crick's speculations about space probes seeding the
>earth are somewhat off-the-wall as well in my opinion. Hoyle however takes
>it to a whole other level. In fact Hoyle criticized Crick for not going far
>enough with his panspermia (Hoyle 1983 p. 158-160). Hoyle not only supports
>the original seeding of life on earth but also believes that the
>intelligence that first seeded the earth has been guiding the changes in
>life forms through geologic time. A sort of genetic engineering via
>diseases (particularly viral) that this intelligence continually rains down
>on the earth.
Actually I agree with Hoyle's criticism of Crick "for not going far enough".
The problem with Crick's panspermia is that it did not explain the ultimate
origin of life on the planet which was supposed to have seeded Earth. At
least Hoyle's "Intelligent Universe" theory, is an attempt to explain the
ultimate origins of life.
>SJ>>Well he *is* "Sir Fred Hoyle the famous British astronomer",
>irrespective of whether some of his other ideas were "silly"! <<
TB>Yes, but again pointing out the one without pointing out the other is
>misleading by omission.
So does Troy advocate that science journals should not print scientific
papers by a person unless they also include a full statement of any
"alternative views" they may have, otherwise it would be "misleading
by omission"?
[...]
TB>References:
>
>Hoyle, Fred and Wickramasinghe, Chandra (1981) _Evolution From Space_ chap.
>8 _Insects from Space?_
Note the question mark.
TB>Hoyle, Fred (1983) _The Intelligent Universe: A New View of Creation and
>Evolution_
None of which appeared in Troy's complete list of books on his web page.
Note also the dates of these-the 1980's. Hoyle has a statement in the Preface
of his 1999 revision of his "Mathematics of Evolution" which gives a brief
summary of his views *today*:
"Today, however, I would modify this picture somewhat to the view
that all genes in present-day organisms were here already in the
metazoans that invade the Earth 570 million years ago at the beginning
of the Cambrian Era, making the subsequent story of terrestrial
evolution into one in which genes have been called into operation as
ecologic conditions permitted them to be so. For example, it would
have been pointless call in a genetic system leading to the appearance
of flowering plants before the means of successful pollination existed.
The intricate interleaving of many organisms had to proceed in concert
with each in a pattern that has grown every more complex with the
passage of time. The first metazoans were relatively simple forms that
could exist by themselves on an undeveloped Earth, but they already
possessed the genes necessary for their subsequent development."
(Hoyle F., "Mathematics of Evolution", 1999, pp.xvi)
Nothing about insects here. And genes arriving from space is no
longer as `way-out' as it once was. If they are eventually discovered
Hoyle will no doubt be hailed as another great hero of science who,
like many before him, had to battle against the `priestly' hostility of
the science establishment, which resists `alternative views'!.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 08 2000 - 17:23:44 EDT