Reflectorites
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 17:24:25 -0500, Susan Brassfield wrote:
SB>Below is an article that I found on another list by a biologist at Baylor
>University. For Bertvan's edification, the author not only defines the word
>"propaganda" but also "theory." Stephen should note that the author is a
>Christian.
I am not sure what the fact that "the author is a Christian" has to do with it.
It is well known that among the most vociferous critics of both ID and
creationism are Christian theistic evolutionists. In this case Hamrick is in
fact a Christian *Darwinist*, claiming that "Darwin's Theory of Natural
Selection is our best explanation for how things evolve..." (see below).
Since Darwinism depends *absolutely* on the assumption that *all*
mutations in the entire 3.9 billion-year history of life have been random
with respect to adaptive improvement, it is absolutely *essential* that
Darwinists (including Christian ones), attack all Christian creationist
notions of a Creator guiding or intervening in natural history.
BTW that Susan is citing Hamrick as a "Christian" is ironic because from
her previous utterances she thinks that Christianity is equivalent to belief in
Santa Claus or the tooth fairy and that therefore all Christians (including
presumably Hamrick) must be *massively* deluded!
Hamrick, if he sees this, might ponder that atheists like Susan seize on his
criticisms of Dembski, not to destroy just ID, but really behind that
*Christianity*.
Hamrick might also ponder why, as a Christian, he doesn't spend His Lord's
time more profitably attacking his *atheist* fellow Darwinists like Dawkins
and Ruse (instead of defending them), rather than attacking his Christian
brother, Dembski.
[...]
I have prefixed Hamrick's words below with "CH" to distinguish them
from any reply Susan may make.
CH>Cliff Hamrick <cliff_hamrick@BAYLOR.EDU> April 11, 2000
>10:52:49 AM EDT
>reiterations@META-LIST.ORG
>
>Dr. Dembski's last submission to Metaviews has sparked in me the need to
>respond to all the Creationist propaganda that I have been reading. First,
>let me say that I do not use the words 'Creationist propaganda' lightly.
Hamrick is no doubt completely sincere in this. If he is a Christian
Darwinist then no doubt a Christian who is a creationist attacking
Darwinism at its very roots would *seem* like "propaganda" to him.
CH>According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary, the definition
>of propaganda is 'doctrines, ideas, arguments, facts, or allegations spread
>by deliberate effort through any medium of communication in order to
>further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause'.
Since Hamrick is also "spreading...ideas, information, or rumor for the
purpose of helping or injuring ... a cause, or a person" and "ideas, facts, or
allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an
opposing cause..." against Dembski in particular and the ID movement in
general, then by that definition he is also spreading propaganda!
CH>In Dr. Dembski's
>article, 'Disbelieving Darwin and Feeling No Shame', he quoted Michael Ruse
>out of context to bolster the opinion of the dogmatism of Darwinists,
All Demsbki said was:
"I open with these general remarks about tentativeness and
dogmatism in science because their importance is too frequently
neglected in discussions of biological evolution. It hardly makes
for a free and open exchange of ideas when biologist Richard
Dawkins asserts, "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet
somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is
ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider
that)." Nor does philosopher Michael Ruse help matters when he
trumpets, "Evolution is a fact, *fact*, *FACT!*" (Meta 027:
"Disbelieving Darwin and Feeling No Shame", by William
Dembski, 16 Mar 2000.
http://listserv.omni-list.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind00&L=metaviews&D=1&O=D&F=&S=&P=3423)
First, notice BTW that Hamrick selectively ignores what Dawkins said!
Second, notice the fact, *fact*, *FACT* :-) that Ruse *did* say it:
"As noted in the Preface, one often sees it said that `evolution is
not a fact, but a theory.' Is this the essence of my claim? Not
really! Indeed, I suggest that this wise-sounding statement is
confused to the point of falsity: it almost certainly is if, without
regard for cause, one means no more by `evolution' than the claim
that all organisms developed naturally from primitive beginnings.
Evolution is a fact, *fact*, *FACT*!" (Ruse M., "Darwinism
Defended," 1983, p.58. Emphasis Ruse's)
Even if in defense of Ruse, one points out that by "evolution" he only
means that "all organisms developed naturally from primitive beginnings"
without specifying the "cause", it is dogmatic, nonetheless. And it is not
even true. It is *not* a "fact" that "all organisms developed *naturally*
from primitive beginnings". There is simply no way for Ruse to know that
it was 100% "naturally" unless he makes the dogmatic assumption that
either there is no God (materialism), or He never supernaturally intervened
in life's history (naturalism).
CH>misrepresented the ideas of Mickey Rowe
I cannot see where Dembski in his article says anything about anyone
called "Rowe".
CH>"(later writing a half apology) to
>paint the picture of Darwinists as monsters,
Again I cannot follow what Hamrick is saying. The word "monsters" does
not even appear in Dembski's article.
CH>and only wrote half the truth
>about Darwin's presentation of his Theory of Natural Selection (the truth
>is that during Darwin's time there were few if any specialized scientific
>journals, that Newton, Kepler, and Galileo also published books for the
>public, .
Hamrick misses the point. What Dembski was saying is that from Darwin's
time on, Darwinists have always assumed that their theory was
understandable to the public, so they cannot blame non-acceptance of it as
non-understanding:
"The public need feel no shame at disbelieving and openly
criticizing Darwinism. Most scientific theories these days are
initially published in specialized journals or monographs, and are
directed toward experts assumed to possess considerable technical
background. Not so Darwin's theory. The locus classicus for
Darwin's theory remains his *Origin of Species*. In it Darwin took
his case to the public. Contemporary Darwinists likewise continue
to take their case to the public. The books of Richard Dawkins,
Daniel Dennett, Stephen Jay Gould, E. O. Wilson, and a host of
other biologists and philosophers aim to convince a skeptical public
about the merits of Darwin's theory. These same authors commend
the public when it finds their arguments convincing. But when the
public remains unconvinced, commendation turns to condemnation.
"Dembski, "Disbelieving Darwin and Feeling No Shame", 2000)
CH> and that Darwin and Wallace copresented the Theory of Natural
>Selection to a group of fellow scientists).
Here Hamrick is simply wrong at best and deliberately misleading at
worst. First, Wallace did not co-present his theory with Darwin "to a
group of fellow scientists". The facts are that Wallace sent an abstract of
his theory to Darwin for review by him and Lyell and then publication, but
Darwin hastily wrote his own brief abstract of his theory and read it *first*
at a meeting of the Linnaean Society in 1858, followed by Wallace's
paper. Wallace was in Malaya and did not know anything about it until
after it had happened.
Second, Darwin's "fellow scientists" did not really understand from
Darwin's abstract what his theory was. Even Darwin's friends Hooker, and
Huxley who were privy to Darwin's abstract, did not accept his theory
until after they read it in full in the Origin of Species.
CH>Given these facts, the lack of
>any scientific data, philosophical or theological arguments,
Dembski article was necessarily brief, and he was not even *attempting* to
present "any scientific data" or "theological arguments". But it is false to
say that there was a "lack of ....philosophical ...arguments" Dembski did
actually refer to the arguments of *four* philosophers (Kuhn, Descartes,
Socarates and Dennett" in his brief article.
The point of Dembski's article was simply to argue that considering the
history of science, Darwinists should be less dogmatic and take seriously
the possibility that they might be wrong:
"Science, we are told, is tentative. And given the history of science,
there is every reason for science to be tentative. No scientific theory
withstands revision for long, and many are eventually superseded by
theories that flat contradict their predecessors. Scientific
revolutions are common, painful, and real. New theories regularly
overturn old ones, and no scientific theory is ever the final word.
But if science is tentative, scientists are not. As philosopher of
science Thomas Kuhn rightly noted, it takes a revolution to change
scientific theories precisely because scientists do not hold their
theories tentatively. ... No scientist with a career invested in a
scientific theory is going to relinquish it easily. And a good thing
that is! The only way to make headway with a theory is to be fully
invested in it. .... Scientists risk their careers and livelihoods
working on theories they hope will solve interesting problems.
Consequently, scientists need to be persuaded that their theories
provide not only fundamental and profound insights, but also
avenues of research sufficiently fruitful to span an entire scientific
career (typically forty or so years). By itself a scientist's lack of
tentativeness poses no danger to science. It only becomes a danger
when it turns to dogmatism. Typically, a scientist's lack of
tentativeness toward a scientific theory simply means that the
scientist is convinced the theory is substantially correct. Scientists
are fully entitled to such convictions. On the other hand, scientists
who hold their theories dogmatically go on to assert that their
theories *cannot* be incorrect. How can a scientist keep from
descending into dogmatism? The only way I know is to look
oneself squarely in the mirror and continually affirm: *I may be
wrong* ... *I may be massively wrong* ... *I may be hopelessly and
irretrievably wrong* -- and mean it! It's not enough just to mouth
these words. We need to take them seriously and admit that they
can apply even to our most cherished scientific beliefs. A simple
induction from past scientific failures should be enough to convince
us that the only thing about which we cannot be wrong is the
possibility that we might be wrong." (Meta 027, Dembski, 16 Mar
2000)
Ironically, by his outraged overreaction, Hamrick indirectly confirmed
Dembski's thesis!
CH>and his close
>association with the Discovery Center, a think tank with a definite
>socio-political agenda,
What has this got to do with it? *Everyone* has a "socio-political
agenda". Hamrick presumably does not discount Gould, Lewontin or
Maynard Smith's scientific theories because their "socio-political agenda"
is Marxism! If having a "socio-political agenda" or even being associated
with those who have, disqualifies one's scientific theories, then there
would be no science.
CH>I can only determine it's purpose to be to further
>Dr. Dembski's cause and to damage an opposing cause, mainly Darwinism.
It is interesting that Hamrick sees "Darwinism" as a "cause". He indirectly
again confirms Dembski's point. Darwinists do not see their theory as just
another scientific theory, but as a "cause" which must be defended no
matter what.
CH>Dr. Dembski is certainly no scientist, he does not conduct scientific
>research, and he does not write scientific articles.
Again this "priestly" ad hominem misses Dembski's point that Darwinists
have always assumed that their theory was understandable by the general
public:
If that is the case, then someone who " holds seven degrees" like Dembski
can surely understand it and criticise it.
The idea that Darwinists can write popular books on Darwinism for the
general public, but the public are not able to criticise and disbelieve
Darwinism just doesn't compute:
"How is it that the public is commended for its scientific acumen
when it accepts Darwinian evolutionary theory, but disparaged for
its scientific insensibility when it doubts that same theory? The mark
of dogmatism is to reward conformity and punish dissent. If
contemporary science does indeed belong to the culture of rational
discourse, then it must repudiate dogmatism and authoritarianism in
all guises. If the public can be trusted to evaluate the case for
Darwinism -- and this is what Darwinists tacitly assume whenever
they publish books on Darwinism for the public -- then it is unfair
to turn against the public when it decides that the case for
Darwinism is unconvincing." . (Meta 027, Dembski, 16 Mar 2000)
CH>According to his CV from his website, Dr. Dembski holds seven degrees,
>though none of them are in the sciences. His closest degrees to science
>are in mathematics.
This is both false and misleading. Dembski's qualifications include
"philosophy of science" and "physics":
"William A. Dembski (Pascal Centre) holds a Ph.D. in mathematics
from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. in philosophy from the
University of Illinois, Chicago. He has conducted doctoral and
postdoctoral research at Cornell (math), MIT (math), the University
of Chicago (math and physics), Princeton (computer science) and
Northwestern (math and philosophy of science). He has been a
National Science Foundation doctoral and postdoctoral fellow.
Topics of his publications range from mathematics (e.g, Journal of
Theoretical Probability) to philosophy (e.g, Nous) to theology (e.g
Epiphany Journal). He has made fundamental contributions to the
foundations of probability theory (for example, exploring
randomness and small probabilities); The mathematical and
philosophical foundations of design/teleology as well as their
implications for natural theology constitute his primary research
interest." (Moreland J.P., ed., "The Creation Hypothesis," 1994,
p.334).
CH>However, I know from my personal relations with
>mathematicians that this is no real indication of a good understanding of
>science.
Leaving aside that Neo-Darwinism is supposedly based on a mathematical
theory of population genetics, of which Dembski would probably be in a
postitin to understand better than most biologists, this is really an absurd
argument. Evolution is not quantum physics. If it is to be taught to school
students in Kansas, then it must be understandable by them, at least in its
main outlines. The whole underlying premise of Darwinist popular writing
is that evolution is so simple that anyone who doesn't believe in it must be
"ignorant, stupid or insane... or wicked":
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims
not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane
(or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." (Dawkins R., "Put
Your Money on Evolution", Review of Johanson D. & Edey M.A,,
"Blueprints: Solving the Mystery of Evolution", in New York
Times, April 9, 1989, sec. 7, p34)
I am just a layman and I have just passed with distinction my first semester
unit which was the main origin of life and evolution unit in the entire
Biology degree. There was nothing special or particularly hard about it. If
the main evolution unit in a Biology degree is the first unit in First Year
university, and expected to be understood by teenagers straight from high
school, it is absurd to claim that someone of Demsbki's intellect and
erudition would have any trouble understanding it!
CH>He sites his areas of specialization as foundations of
>probability, philosophy of science, logic of conditionals, and philosophy
>of religion. As far as I can tell from his CV, he has never actually
>conducted any real scientific research. If this is true, then this means
>that he has experience in talking about science without actually ever
>conducting an experiment.
See above. Apart from the fact that there is no "experiment" which can
verify the really major claims of Darwinism, like that a small, land
mammal changed through imperceptible degrees by random mutation and
natural selection into a whale in only 5-10 million years, if the argument
is that only those who have "conducted ... scientific research" or "an
experiment" can criticise Darwinism, then Darwinists like Gould,
Dawkins, Dennett and Ruse should stop writing books for the general
public.
Come to think about it, Dennett and Ruse are *philosophers* like
Dembski and may themselves never have have "conducted ... scientific
research" or "an experiment". In fact when was the last time that Dawkins
or Gould undertook an "experiment"?
And Darwinists are just as hostile to Mike Behe who probably conducts
more "scientific research" and "experiments" than all of the above put
together! So in the end Hamrick's impugning of Dembski's alleged lack of
scientific qualifications is just an ploy to deflect criticism from
Darwinism. I don't say that Hamrick does this consciously. No doubt to
him it *really* seems that way.
CH>Dr. Dembski, despite his claims of intelligent design as a scientific
>theory, is not conducting scientific research.
See above. But in any event, Dembski's does not even *claim* to be
"conducting scientific research", at least in an experimental sense.
Dembski's efforts are directed towards establishing the philosophical absis
for intelligent design as a scientific theory.
Other members of the ID movement, like Mike Behe, are "conducting
scientific research" aimed at proving evidence for ID. But Behe's evidence
is then rejected on other grounds.
Since the really major claims for Darwinism go far beyond any possibility
of experimental testing, it probably wouldn't matter to convinced
Darwinists (even Christian ones) what "scientific research" and
"experiments" ID conducted to support their theory.
CH>Science is based on the principle of testable, falsifiable hypotheses.
So what would falsify Darwinism? Darwin proposed Irreducible
Complexity as a crucial test of his theory:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which
could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive,
slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
(Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species," 6th Edition, 1928, reprint,
p.170)
but modern-day Darwinists like Hamrick just reject IC it out of hand.
[continued]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"SEEKING a case of extreme competition between individual plants, I
thought I had found it in the desert. When, on rare occasions, a heavy rain
awakens the seeds which have been lying dormant in the desert sands
during the dry years, a thousand or more seedlings may sprout on every
square foot of this usually barren soil. They may be so dense that the
seedling leaves cover the surface with a carpet of green. Everything I had
ever read about evolution prepared me to find at such a time a jockeying
for supremacy a struggle for space and an ultimate victory of a few plants
which managed to outgrow the others. And what actually happened? All
these seedlings grew. They grew slowly, to be sure, but more than half of
them got far enough in that arid habitat to form a few leaves, at least one
flower and ultimately a few seeds. It was not a case of a few outgrowing
the others and monopolizing the light, moisture and nutrients-they grew up
evenly, equally sharing available space. It was clear that if a seed of a
desert annual plant once manages to germinate, it has a better than even
chance to grow up into a mature plant and to fulfil its function or mission
of producing at least one but usually more seeds. There is no violent
struggle between plants, no warlike mutual killing, but a harmonious
development on a share-and-share-alike basis. The co-operative principle is
stronger than the competitive one: the controlling factor in the desert's
carpet of flowers is the germination of the seed, and it is differential
germination which regulates the plant population in the world. In other
words, not war, but birth control is nature's answer." (Went F.W., "The
Plants", [1963], Time/Life Books: Netherlands, 1965, reprint, p.168)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 20 2000 - 16:54:38 EDT