Reflectorites
Again, apologies for the delay. I am working though Susan's many
points but after having done so I will try to terminate this thread.
On Wed, 17 May 2000 13:21:10 -0500, Susan Brassfield wrote:
[continued]
>SJ>As mostly atheists they have chosen to declare `war' on Christianity, so they
>>should not be surprised when Christians defend themselves.
SB>They ignored you before the outright propaganda, distortions and
>misrepresentations. Someday I may start a campaign alledging that
>Christians are all Satan worshipers. (I threaten to do it from time to
>time.)
Christianity survived Nero. I am sure it will survive *Susan*! :-)
SB>I could easily pull quotes from the bible out of context to prove
>it.
I doubt it. But for Susan's sake I won't challenge her to do it!
SB>And, of course, there's the Christians slaughtering people in Ireland,
>Bosnia, etc. to bolster my case.
Who says they are "Christians"? Jesus Himself says that many will come in
His name but on the judgment day He will disown them (Mt 7:23). As I
have pointed out previously, the *only* criteria for "Christian" that really
matters is whether Christ Himself accepts that person as a Christian.
It is the very *opposite* of Christianity to be "slaughtering people". It is
when Christianity gets mixed up with other ideologies (e.g. politics,
nationalism, racism) that such perversions of Christianity occur. But then it
is not really Christianity. It is just politics, nationalism, racism, etc.
In both Ireland and Bosnia, the aggressors were Marxists (the IRA is
largely Marxist, funded and armed from Russia). So if anything they are
really *atheists*.
In the 20th century alone, atheist regimes (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia,
Maoist China, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, etc), have slaughtered over 100
*million* people, mostly civilians. And the *atheist* Susan has the utter
gall to blame Christianity (so-called) for the *thousands* it has killed in
2000 years.
SB>How defensive do you think you could get?
Why should *I* be "defensive"? I haven't killed anybody!
And if Christians are not living according to Christ's teachings then I would
*welcome* Susan (or anyone else) exposing it. She would be doing true
Christianity a favour.
SB>After all, you should be safe in the knowledge that it's all not true!
Well I am "safe in the knowledge that it's all not true", i.e. in the
sense that Christianity itself is the *cause* of people being slaughtered
in Ireland and Bosnia.
The true cause is *cultural*, *political* and *racial*. It might have
*started* centuries ago as theological differences between two different
Christian denominations (e.g. Catholics vs Protestants in "Ireland") or
between two different religions (e.g. Christians vs Moslems in "Bosnia"),
but today the original theological cause is forgotten, and it is just two or
more groups of people hating each other for what they have done to each
other over the centuries.
Proof of this is when those same people come to a new country like
Australia (and I presume America) if they are Christians they *love* each
other. Here in Perth, every Easter, *all* the Christian churches (Catholic,
Protestant, Orthodox, etc) get together in a public park and we all sing
Christian hymns together and march together through the city, celebrating
our unity in Christ. Pastor Bill Hybels of Chicago's Willow Creek Church
flies out every year to Perth from to address us. He said it was originally
unique in the world, but it is starting to happen everywhere.
When the politics, nationalism and racism fade away, true Christianity
remains and re-asserts itself.
SB>It simply shouldn't matter what lies I told about you.
In the end it doesn't.
But I find it interesting that, as an atheist, Susan could calmly contemplate
telling "lies" to further her cause. Indeed, as an atheist Susan would have
no reason *within her own system* not to tell "lies".
This is not to say that Susan *would* tell lies. Many (if not most) atheists
are better than their system. Especially those atheists, like Susan, who
come from Christian homes!
[...]
>SJ>No. Dembski as a *Christian* believes everything is designed. But Dembski
>>also as an *IDer* believes that some of this design can be empirically
>>detected:
SB>so if everything is designed to what is he comparing design in order to
>detect it?
See above. We are going around and around in circles with this one. Susan
cannot admit there really is design at *any* level, so she just goes around
and around it asking the same questions and taking no notice of my
answers.
>SJ>"I use design to denote what it is about intelligently produced objects that
>>enables us to tell that they are intelligently produced and not simply the
>>result of natural causes.
SB>but this sounds like he's saying only some things are designed.
See above. Dembski is speaking as an *ID* theorist. He is distinguishing
between "intelligently produced" things (`painting' level design) and
"natural (i.e. unintelligent) causes" (`canvas' level design).
>SJ>When intelligent agents act, they leave behind a
>>characteristic trademark or signature. The scholastics used to refer to the
>>'"vestiges in creation." The Latin vestigium means footprint. It was thought
>>that God, though not directly present to our senses, had nonetheless left his
>>"footprints" throughout creation.
SB>a footprint is only visible against a background of non-footprints. Dembski
>*is* saying that some things are natural and not designed.
See above. A beach can be designed at the `canvas' level and `footprints'
designed at another `painting' level. In the book of the same name,
Robinson Crusoe was a devout Christian who presumably believed the
beach was designed, along with the whole universe, but that did not stop
him inferring a *special case* of design in Friday's footprints on that beach.
We are just going around in circles on this, so I am going to ignore any
further questions about this two levels of design topic.
>SJ>...It is design in this sense as a trademark, signatures
>>vestige or fingerprint-that this criterion for discriminating
>>intelligently from unintelligently caused objects is meant to
>>identify." (Dembski W.A.,"Intelligent Design," 1999, p.127).
SB>so he is saying there are some unintellighently caused objects. How does
>this agree with what you were saying?
See above. It is the same distinction between "intelligently" and
"unintelligently caused objects" that archeologists and SETI researchers
make. The fundamental problem of archaeology is to tell an artefact (an
intelligently produced object) from a geofact (a naturally produced object):
"There's the rub: it isn't enough to prove a specimen could be an artefact;
one must also prove that it could not be a geofact." (Meltzer D., "Stones of
contention," New Scientist, 24 June 1995, p34).
>>SB>...Darwin was
>>>terrified of you creationists. That's why he waited to the last possible
>>>moment to publish his book.
>SJ>So what changed between 1837 and 1858? Was there a sudden decline in
>>"creationists" in only 21 years?
SB>are you serious? He was about to lose his priority in one of the greatest
>and most powerful ideas in human history!
This still does not explain why Wallace wasn't "terrified of ... creationists".
He was much more vulnerable than Darwin.
SB>He took to his bed from sheer
>nerves, wrote "please don't hate me" letters to all his clergy friends, and
>finally sucked it up and published. He was not a brave man.
Actually, in order to publish the Origin (which is quite a large book)
Darwin must have done the complete reverse and got up out of "his bed".
Which makes me wonder whether exaggerating his illness was not a
strategy Darwin followed to make sure he would not be bothered while he
pursued his researches.
>SJ>And why did Wallace publish his theory of
>>natural selection as soon as he hit on the idea? Darwin had nothing to be
>>"terrified" of - he was a very wealthy man whose scientific career was
>>already established by his papers and books following his Beagle voyage.
>>But Wallace was a comparatively poor person who would have had much more
>>reason to be "terrified of...creationists" if that was the problem.
SB>Wallace drew a line around humans. According to him everything evolved
>except us. We were created. Darwin knew we were not exempt.
First, Wallace didn't draw "a line around humans" at first. It was only later
that he realised that humans did not fit the Darwinist model.
Second, Darwin himself didn't say much about humans until the Descent of
Man 12 years later. All the Origin said about "humans" was: "Much light
will be thrown on the origin of man and his history." (Darwin C., "The
Origin of Species," 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.462)
>SJ>The fact is that Darwin delayed publishing his theory because he knew he
>>did not have enough *evidence*:
>>
>>"The problem confronting Darwin at the end of 1838 was not so much the
>>fact that if he communicated his ideas he would be severely criticized, but
>>rather the fact that he did not have very much to communicate. . . . "
>>(Gale B.G., "Evolution Without Evidence," 1982, p.8).
SJ>that was quite true--in 1838.
Nothing much changed between 1838 and 1859. When Darwin did publish
his Origin in 1859 he still was "severely criticized" and he still "did not have
very much to communicate".
In 1959 *100* years later, an ardent Darwinist Kettlewell published an
article on Peppered Moths titled: "Darwin's Missing Evidence", admitted
that Darwin in 1859 "had no visible example of evolution at work in
nature:
"Charles Darwin's Origin of Species, the centenary of which we celebrate in
1959, was the fruit of 26 years of laborious accumulation of facts from
nature. Others before Darwin had believed in evolution, but he alone
produced a cataclysm of data in support of it. Yet there were two
fundamental gaps in his chain of evidence. First, Darwin had no knowledge
of the mechanism of heredity. Second, he had no visible example of
evolution at work in nature." (Kettlewell H.B.D., "Darwin's Missing
Evidence," Scientific American, Vol. 201, No. 3, March 1959, p48)
SB>Here is a quote to add to your collection.
>This is Darwin himself, in his "Autobiography"
>http://149.152.105.38/Honors/EText/Darwin/DarwinAutobiography.html
If I haven't already thanked Susan for this link, I thank her now.
SB>-----
>From September 1854 onwards I devoted all my time to arranging my huge pile
>of notes, to
>observing, and experimenting, in relation to the transmutation of species.
>During the voyage of
>the Beagle I had been deeply impressed by discovering in the Pampean
>formation great fossil
>animals covered with armour like that on the existing armadillos; secondly,
>by the manner in
>which closely allied animals replace one another in proceeding southwards
>over the Continent;
>and thirdly, by the South American character of most of the productions of
>the Galapagos
>archipelago, and more especially by the manner in which they differ
>slightly on each island of
>the group; none of these islands appearing to be very ancient in a
>geological sense.
This is really no big deal. Even Linnaeus had accepted "centres of creation"
and radiation from them. As Denton points out, all Darwin's evidence in the
Origin support only *microevolution* yet Darwin was trying to make a
case for *macroevolution*:
"In his book Darwin is actually presenting two related but quite distinct
theories. The first, which has sometimes been called the "special theory", is
relatively conservative and restricted in scope and merely proposes that
new races and species arise in nature by the agency of natural selection,
thus the complete title of his book: The Origin of Species by Means of
Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life. The second theory, which is often called the "general theory", is far
more radical. It makes the claim that the "special theory" applies universally
and hence that the appearance of all the manifold diversity of life on Earth
can be explained by a simple extrapolation of the processes which bring
about relatively trivial changes such as those seen on the Galapagos
Islands. This "general theory" is what most people think of when they refer
to evolution theory." (Denton M.J., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," 1985,
p.44)
SB>It was evident that such facts as these, as well as many [119] others could
>be explained on the
>supposition that species gradually become modified; and the subject haunted
>me.
Darwin's autobiography was written long after the event. Desmond and
Moore's biography points out that Darwin in his Edinburgh days was a
close friend of atheist evolutionists and attended their meetings. Darwin's
own grandfather Erasmus was one of the greatest evolutionists of all time,
and Darwin's father Robert was an atheist.
The idea that Darwin was some wide-eyed innocent who started of as a
YEC and who was forced to believe in evolution because of the facts is
ridiculous. As Gould points out, in Darwin's own private notebooks he was
secretly a philosophical materialist:
"These so-called M and N notebooks were written in 1838 and 1839, while
Darwin was compiling the transmutation notebooks that formed the basis
for his sketches of 1842 and 1844. They contain his thoughts on
philosophy, esthetics, psychology and anthropology. On re-reading them in
1856, Darwin described them as "full of metaphysics on morals." They
include many statements showing that he espoused but feared to expose
something he perceived as far more heretical than evolution itself:
philosophical materialism-the postulate that matter is the stuff of all
existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products.
No notion could be more upsetting to the deepest traditions of Western
thought than the statement that mind-however complex and powerful-is
simply a product of brain. ... The notebooks prove that Darwin was
interested in philosophy and aware of its implications. He knew that the
primary feature distinguishing his theory from all other evolutionary
doctrines was its uncompromising philosophical materialism. Other
evolutionists spoke of vital forces, directed history, organic striving, and
the essential irreducibility of mind-a panoply of concepts that traditional
Christianity could accept in compromise, for they permitted a Christian
God to work by evolution instead of creation. Darwin spoke only of
random variation and natural selection. In the notebooks Darwin resolutely
applied his materialistic theory of evolution to all phenomena of life,
including what he termed "the citadel itself" - the human mind. And if mind
has no real existence beyond the brain, can God be anything more than an
illusion invented by an illusion? In one of his transmutation notebooks, he
wrote: Love of the deity effect of organization, oh you materialist!..."
(Gould S.J., "Darwin's Delay," in "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in
Natural History," 1991, pp.23-25)
And therefore Darwin was looking for all the evidence he could find to
support his beliefs, while pretending to be a devout Christian. To the extent
that Darwin really did have psychosomatic problems, it was probably
because he was living this double life.
SB>But it was
>equally evident that neither the action of the surrounding conditions, nor
>the will of the
>organisms (especially in the case of plants), could account for the
>innumerable cases in which
>organisms of every kind are beautifully adapted to their habits of
>life,-for instance, a
>woodpecker
Interestingly a "woodpecker" is one of the example that Darwin sets out to
explain in the Origin:
"Naturalists continually refer to external conditions, such as climate, food,
etc., as the only possible cause of variation. In one limited sense, as we
shall hereafter see, this may be true; but it is preposterous to attribute to
mere external conditions, the structure, for instance, of the woodpecker,
with its feet, tail, beak, and tongue, so admirably adapted to catch insects
under the bark of trees." (Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species," 6th
Edition, 1928, reprint, p.18)
but AFAIK he didn't ever adequately. I plan to write something on this
eventually.
SB>or tree-frog to climb trees, or a seed for dispersal by hooks or
>plumes. I had always
>been much struck by such adaptations, and until these could be explained it
>seemed to me
>almost useless to endeavour to prove by indirect evidence that species have
>been modified.
Darwin is setting up a straw man. Even Linnaeus, believed that species had
been modified, in 1744, more than a *century* before:
"It is one of the ironies of history that Linnaeus' classification of species
should in large part prevail even today, surviving so long the assumption
upon which it was based, that of the immutability of species. It is also
ironic that his famous dictum-"the number of species is the same as the
number of forms created from the beginning"-which has come down as the
classical expression of immutability, was retracted by Linnaeus himself
within a decade of its publication. Confronted with the evidence of a hybrid
form that could reproduce itself, Linnaeus was finally forced to concede
that "it is possible for new species to rise within the plant world," and thus
"the basis for all botanical science, and the natural classification of plants
[is] exploded." (Hagberg, Linnaeus, p. 197, quoting Linnaeus' Dissertation
on Peloris, 1744) (Himmelfarb G., "Darwin and the Darwinian
Revolution," 1996, p.170)
SB>After my return to England it appeared to me that by following the example
>of Lyell in Geology,
>and by collecting all facts which bore in any way on the variation of
>animals and plants under
>domestication and nature, some light might perhaps be thrown on the whole
>subject.
All during his voyage Darwin had been "collecting all facts which bore in
any way on the variation of animals and plants under...nature"
Now back at home he started (or picked up where he left off) "collecting
all facts which bore in any way on the variation of animals and plants under
domestication."
SB>My first
>note-book was opened in July 1837. I worked on true Baconian principles,
>and without any
>theory collected facts on a wholesale scale, more especially with respect
>to domesticated
>productions, by printed enquiries, by conversation with skilful breeders
>and gardeners, and by
>extensive reading.
No philosopher of science AFAIK believes this. It is *impossible* to
"work... on true Baconian principles, and without any theory' just "
collect...facts". There are *millions* of "facts". One has to *select* out of
the avalanche of facts, those facts which support one's general theory.
SB>When I see the list of books of all kinds which I read
>and abstracted, including
>whole series of Journals and Transactions, I am surprised at my industry. I
>soon perceived that
>selection was the keystone of man's success in making useful races of
>animals and plants.
Darwin was an acute observer of nature (maybe the greatest of all time)
from his childhood. He would not have had to have "perceived" for any
longer than a minute or two "that selection was the keystone of man's
success in making useful races of animals and plants." This alone shows
that Darwin is making up a false history after the event.
SB>But
>how selection could be applied to organisms living in a [120] state of
>nature remained for some
>time a mystery to me.
This at least is probably true. Indeed, arguably it remained a "mystery"
to Darwin afterwards as well (see tagline)!
SB>In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic
>enquiry, I happened
>to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to
>appreciate the
>struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued
>observation of the habits
>of animals and plants,
Desmond and Moore point out that Darwin must have been aware of
Malthus' theory before this since Malthus was one of the hottest topics in
the 1830's:
"[Darwin] continued reading, still interested in human statistics. Late in the
month he picked up the sixth edition of Malthus's Essay on the Principle of
Population - the polemical account of humanity outstripping its food
supply, and the weak and improvident succumbing in the struggle for the
available resources. Malthus had rarely been more topical. In the depth of
the depression, with unprecedented distress, the poor law and pauper riots
were on everybody's lips. Workhouses were still being attacked,
commissioners still being pelted. Malthus had denounced charity, and the
rioters abominated anything Malthusian that propped up the New Poor
Law....Darwin knew the theory. With Martineau his dinner guest, how
could he not? Getting the poor off welfare increased competition among
working men and reduced taxes. Competition was paramount, making
Malthus a Whig free trader's godsend in the 1830s." (Desmond A. &
Moore J., "Darwin," 1992, reprint, p.264)
SB>it at once struck me that under these circumstances
>favourable
>variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be
>destroyed.
And this contains an important fallacy that lies at the heart of Darwinism.
That "unfavourable ones" (i.e. variations) would tend "to be destroyed"
does not mean that "favourable variations would tend to be preserved".
Those that are *not* "unfavourable" would "tend to be preserved". Darwin
is slipping in an idea of positive favourableness that his natural selection
theory does not really support.
SB>The result of this would be the formation of new species.
This does not follow. The "variation of animals and plants under
domestication" had never (and has never AFAIK) produced a "new species".
SB>Here, then, I had at last got a
>theory by which to
>work; but I was so anxious to avoid prejudice, that I determined not for
>some time to write even
>the briefest sketch of it.
Darwin does not say whose "prejudice" he was trying to "avoid" but it was
more likely to be from his fellow scientists than "creationists".
SB>In June 1842 I first allowed myself the
>satisfaction of writing a very
>brief abstract of my theory in pencil in 35 pages; and this was enlarged
>during the summer of
>1844 into one of 230 pages, which I had fairly copied out and still possess.
This is probably true. I read somewhere that they actually found Darwin's
230 page manuscript while renovating his house.
SB>But at that time I overlooked one problem of great importance; and it is
>astonishing to me,
>except on the principle of Columbus and his egg, how I could have
>overlooked it and its solution.
>This problem is the tendency in organic beings descended from the same
>stock to diverge in
>character as they become modified. That they have diverged greatly is
>obvious from the
>manner in which species of all kinds can be classed under genera, genera
>under families, families
>under suborders, and so forth; and I can remember the very spot in the
>road, whilst in my
>carriage, when to my joy the [121] solution occurred to me; and this was
>long after I had come
>to Down. The solution, as I believe, is that the modified offspring of all
>dominant and increasing
>forms tend to become adapted to many and highly diversified places in the
>economy of nature.
Significantly, Darwin is a bit vague here. Everywhere else he gives dates
and places but here he gives just "long after I had come to Down" and his
"I can remember the very spot in the road, whilst in my carriage, when to
my joy the ... solution occurred to me". It sounds like an alibi. If it really
happened why didn't he write it down in his meticulous journals or his
voluminous correspondence?
The fact is that Wallace's paper was titled "Tendency of Varieties to depart
indefinitely from the Original Type" and it sounds like Darwin is trying to
cover up his plagiarising this idea from Wallace.
SB>Early in 1856 Lyell advised me to write out my views pretty fully, and I
>began at once to do so
>on a scale three or four times as extensive as that which was afterwards
>followed in my Origin of
>Species; yet it was only an abstract of the materials which I had
>collected, and I got through
>about half the work on this scale.
When one adds up all that Darwin wrote, he cannot have been as sick as he
made out.
SB>But my plans were overthrown, for early
>in the summer of
>1858 Mr Wallace, who was then in the Malay archipelago, sent me an essay On
>the Tendency of
>Varieties to depart indefinitely from the Original Type; and this essay
>contained exactly the same theory as mine.
Which itself is hard to believe.
SB>Mr Wallace expressed the wish that if I thought well
>of his essay, I should
>send it to Lyell for perusal.
>-----------
Which Darwin did, but with a letter moaning on that Wallace would beat
him for priority. Therefore, to keep Darwin happy his powerful friends
Lyell and Hooker allowed Darwin to: 1) write up an abstract; and 2) read
this abstract *before* Wallace's paper at the Linnaean Society in 1858.
Darwin didn't even write to Wallace and let him know. The whole episode
was *disgraceful*.
[continued]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One of the ironies of the history of biology is that Darwin did not really
explain the origin of new species in The Origin of Species, because he
didn't know how to define species. The Origin was in fact concerned
mostly with how a single species might change in time, not how one
species might proliferate into many." (Futuyma D.J., "Science on Trial: The
Case for Evolution," Pantheon: New York NY, 1982, p.152)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 17:16:36 EDT