Re: 1. Mike Behe's letter to SCIENCE, 2. Provine & Gish's letters, 3. Less of my posts!

From: Stephen E. Jones (sejones@iinet.net.au)
Date: Thu Jul 13 2000 - 08:49:49 EDT

  • Next message: Stephen E. Jones: "Re: Origin of Life Up in the Air -- Literally"

    Reflectorites

    1. Here is a letter that Mike Behe sent to SCIENCE in response to an
    article by Eugenie Scott which implied that he was a "creationist" (in the
    YEC sense). I know that Behe specifically asked SCIENCE to publish his
    letter in their hardcopy journal, since he was personally named in Scott's
    article, but it obviously was too close to the bone for that!

    In his letter Behe points out that the *real* problem with his stand is not
    because he is a creationist (since he believes in common descent), but
    rather it is because he argues that "intelligent design in biology .... is
    empirically detectable":

            "Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even
            though I clearly write in my book "Darwin's Black Box" (which
            Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt
            common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably
            with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think
            "evolution occurred, but was guided by God." Where I and others
            run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education
            (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is
            not invisible, it is empirically detectable."

    This "empirically detectable" claim is what ID is *all* about. One can
    believe, like Behe, in "God-guided" evolution and be tolerated by Scott
    and her ilk. Where one crosses the line and becomes effectively a
    "creationist" in their eyes, is when one dares to claim that such "God-
    guided" evolution might actually look *empirically* different from
    unguided evolution.

    2. I have also attached for interest letters from atheist evolutionary
    biologist William Provine and the YEC Duane Gish who are both arguing
    for creationism to be taught in schools!

    3. With the increase of posting by atheist/agnostics on this List, and the
    lack of posting by theistic evolutionists challenging them, this List has
    become something of a Jones vs The Rest! I am sure that this is not what
    the Owners of the List intended, and it is not what I intended, but most
    of the responses are addressed to me, and I have felt duty-bound to respond.

    I enjoy an argument (maybe too much so!) but I regard much of what is
    posted in responses these days as just going over the same old ground, and
    largely a waste of everybody's time. I suspect other creationist/IDers
    would post more often but they are intimidated by the abuse and ridicule
    they would probably receive from some on the evolution side.

    I still marvel at how the atheists on this List seem to have no self-
    awareness of the role that their ultimate metaphsyical assumptions
    shape and colour their perception of the facts. They seem to really
    believe that they have cornered the market on rationality and their
    opponents are just a bunch of fools and ignoramuses.

    With second semester of my Biology degree looming, I will again have to
    cut back on the time I spend on the Reflector. Therefore, I am going back
    to my original policy of mostly only posting articles on Creation/Evolution
    issues.

    So from now on I will tend to ignore responses to my articles/posts unless
    they are: 1) from a new member or a less frequent poster; 2) offer support
    or *constructive* criticism; or 3) are saying something genuinely
    new.

    Steve

    ====================================================
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/288/5467/813?ck=nck#EL74

    [...]

    Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism 7 July 2000

    Michael J. Behe,
    Professor of Biological Sciences
    Lehigh University

    [...]

    Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I
    clearly write in my book "Darwin's Black Box" (which Scott cites) that I
    am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In
    fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that
    Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God."
    Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science
    Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology
    is not invisible, it is empirically detectable. The biological literature is
    replete with statements like David DeRosier's in the journal "Cell":
    "More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed
    by a human" (1). Exactly why is it a thought-crime to make the case that
    such observations may be on to something objectively correct?

    Scott blames "frontier," "nonhierarchical" religions for the controversy in
    biology education in the United States. As a member of the decidedly
    hierarchical, mainstream Roman Catholic Church, I think a better
    candidate for blame is the policing of orthodoxy by the NCSE and
    others-abetting lawsuits to suppress discussion of truly open questions
    and decrying academic advocates of intelligent design for "organiz[ing]
    conferences" and "writ[ing] op-ed pieces and books." Among a lot of
    religious citizens, who aren't quite the yahoos evolutionists often seems
    to think they are, such activities raise doubts that the issues are being
    fairly presented, which might then cause some people to doubt the
    veracity of scientists in other areas too. Ironically, the activity of Scott
    and the NCSE might itself be promoting the mistrust of science they
    deplore.

    1. David J. DeRosier, Cell 93, 17 (1998).

    [...]

    Muzzling Creationists 15 May 2000

    William B. Provine,
    Professor
    Cornell University

    [...]

    For many years, Scott and I have been friendly adversaries on the learning of
    evolutionary biology in "K-12" education. We agree that teaching biblical creationism
    is unconstitutional in public schools. No constitutional barrier, however, prevents
    students in biology classes from expressing their views. Most evolutionists prefer to
    muzzle the free speech of creationists. Since no one likes to be robbed of free
    speech, it is no wonder creationists wish to influence school boards and teachers. As
    a long-time teacher of evolutionary biology from grade school through graduate
    school, I encourage the participation of all students and have always found them
    excited by this approach. Evolutionists will not convince nonbelievers by preventing
    them from speaking.
    One sentence on evolutionary biology appears in the last paragraph of Scott's essay:
    "According to the neutralist principle in biology, a mutation will eventually replace the
    wild type unless it is opposed by natural selection." What is this neutralist principle? I
    am writing a history of the theories of neutral molecular evolution but am unaware of
    any such principle.

    [...]

    Supreme Court Ruling 7 July 2000

    Duane T. Gish,
    Senior Vice President
    Institute for Creation Research, P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021

    [...]

    In her Essay, Scott says "the Supreme Court has ruled that teaching creationism and
    creation 'science' are unconstitutional." In a letter published in Nature (1) in 1987,
    after the Supreme Court decision on the Louisiana equal time legislation, Scott said
    "the Supreme Court decision says only that the Louisiana law violates the
    constitutional separation of church and state; it does not say that no one can teach
    scientific creationism--and unfortunately many individual teachers do." These
    statements appear to be contradictory. Which one is true? In an article published in
    1987 in the New York Times Magazine (2), Stephen Jay Gould says "Creationists
    claim their law broadened the freedom of teachers by permitting the introduction of
    controversial material. But no statute exists in any state to bar instruction in 'creation
    science'. It could be taught before, and it can be taught now." Michael Zimmerman in
    Bioscience in 1987 says "The Supreme Court ruling did not, in any way, outlaw the
    teaching of 'creation science' in public school classrooms. Quite simply it ruled that in
    the form taken by the Louisiana law, it is unconstitutional to demand equal time for
    this particular subject. 'Creation science' can still be brought into science classrooms
    if and when teachers and administrators feel it is appropriate."

    By Scott's own words, the concurrence of Gould and Zimmerman, and a reading of
    the Supreme Court's decision concerning the Louisiana law, it seems clear that the
    decision did not declare that teaching scientific evidence that supports creation in
    public school classrooms is unconstitutional and thus prohibited. This false notion is
    incessantly repeated by those who adamantly oppose such educational activities. As
    Richard Lewontin has rightly stated, evolution and creationism are irreconcilable
    worldviews. When each is stripped down to the bare bones, each is intrinsically
    religious. Although they constitute inferences based on circumstantial evidence, the
    evidence supporting each is by nature scientific and should be made available to
    students in the tax-supported public schools of our pluralistic democratic society.

    References

    1. E. Scott, Nature 329, 282 (1987).

    2. S. J. Gould, "The verdict on creationism," New York Times Mag. (19 July 1987), p.
    34.

    3. M. Zimmerman, Bioscience 37 (no. 9), 635 (1987).

    [...]

    ====================================================

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Yet Teggart once again points out the truly interesting lesson of Darwin's
    confrontation with the fossil record. Darwin's early scientific experience
    was primarily as a geologist, and much of what he had to say about the
    nature of the fossil record (summarized in the passage quoted above) was
    an accurate and insightful early contribution to our understanding of the
    vagaries of deposition and the preservation of fossils. But his Chapter 9
    (first edition) on the imperfections of the geological record is one long ad
    hoc, special-pleading argument designed to rationalize, to flat-out explain
    away, the differences between what he saw as logical predictions derived
    from his theory and the facts of the fossil record." (Eldredge N., "Time
    Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of
    Punctuated Equilibria", Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, pp.27-28)
    Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 13 2000 - 18:20:43 EDT