In a message dated 11/2/00 6:41:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,
sejones@iinet.net.au writes:
<< oup
Huxter has cross-posted this to both eGroups and the Calvin Reflector. My
reply will be primarily to eGroups cc. the Reflector. Again I apologise for
it
being late. I am trying to wind down my debates on the Calvin Reflector,
so I will probably only respond to replies in eGroups.
=========================
Perhaps I will repost my posts that Steve deigned not to reply to because
there was too much of his own 'muck' to wade through.... And in reality, I
posted this here in respionse to someone else. The cretionists' tendancy
toward self-importance rears its ungly head yet again...
========================
On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 13:01:48 EST, huxter4441@aol.com wrote:
>SJ>Below is a report by Jonathan Wells tour of Arkansas, Kansas, Washington
>promoting his new book, Icons of Evolution, with one minor change.
[...]
HX>I wonder if this was mentioned by Wells or his admirers:
>
>Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should
>devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow
>Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When
>Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter
>a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for
>battle. J.Wells
This has in fact been "mentioned" before on the Calvin Reflector. Wells is
in fact an adherent of the Unification Church (aka. the Moonies).
The paragraph that Huxter quoted is in fact an interesting paper by Wells
on the Web (which Huxter presumably did not want others to read for
themselves?):
==========================
Again, in reality, the URL had been posted by someone else alreay. I was
commenting on what they had posted. I welcome anyone to read it for
themselves to see the real reasons why Wells got his 2nd Ph.D. Emphases,
editing for brevity mine:
=========================
===================================================================
http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Wells/DARWIN.htm
Unification Sermons and Talks
by Reverends Wells
Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.
by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.-Berkeley, CA
[...]
As a graduate student at Yale, I studied the whole of Christian theology
but focused my attention on the Darwinian controversies.** I wanted to get
to the root of the conflict between Darwinian evolution and Christian
doctrine.**...
According to Darwin's theory, however, the whole history of life is the
outcome of random variations and survival of the fittest. Although some
features of living organisms (such as eyes) appear [sic]to be designed,
Darwin
claimed that this is only an illusion. Living things are the result of an
essentially directionless process, and we are merely the accidental by-
product of blind natural forces which did not have us in mind. When I
finished my Yale Ph.D., I felt confident that I understood the theological
basis of the conflict between Darwinism and theism.
But Darwinism was clearly winning the ideological battle in the
universities, the public schools, and the mass media, largely because it
claimed to be supported by scientific evidence. I knew enough about
biology to know that this claim was quite shaky,[ what a LOAD] but few
scientists were
willing to challenge it. Those who did were often lumped together with
young-earth biblical fundamentalists and thereby discredited in the eyes of
most scholars.
I eventually decided to join the fray by returning to graduate school in
biology. I was convinced that embryology is the Achilles' heel of
Darwinism; [ WHY?] one cannot understand how organisms evolve unless one
understands how they develop. In 1989, I entered a second Ph.D. program,
this time in biology, at the University of California at Berkeley. While
there, I studied embryology and evolution.
According to the standard view, the development of an embryo is
programmed by its genes-its DNA. Change the genes, and you can change
the embryo, even to the point of making a new species....
In every case, if any development occurred at all it followed the pattern of
the egg, not the injected foreign DNA. While I was at Berkeley I
performed experiments on frog embryos. My experiments focused on a
reorganization of the egg cytoplasm after fertilization which causes the
embryo to elongate into a tadpole; if I blocked the reorganization, the
result was a ball of belly cells; if I induced a second reorganization after
the first, I could produce a two-headed tadpole. Yet this reorganization
had nothing to do with the egg's DNA, and proceeded quite well even in
its absence (though the embryo eventually needed its DNA to supply it
with additional proteins).
[amazing! I learned in 6th grade - some 20+ years ago - that amphibian eggs
developed in respionse to things like temperature and gravity! Wells amazing
scientific insights astound me! ]
[...]
To a very limited extent, it also contains information about the order in
which those proteins should be produced-assembly instructions. But it
does not contain the basic floor plan. The floor plan and many of the
assembly instructions reside elsewhere (nobody yet knows where). Since
development of the embryo is not programmed by the DNA, the
Darwinian view of evolution as the differential survival of DNA mutations
misses the point.
[and the reasons for this matter-of-fact statement? no refs Jonny?]
At most, Darwin's theory may explain "microevolution"
within established lineages-such as minor differences among closely
related species of salamanders. But it cannot account for
"macroevolution," - the large-scale differences between shellfish and
insects, or between birds and mammals.
[WHY Jon? Why are you not telling us WHY?]
Darwin's theory is incompatible
not only with the evidence from embryology, but also with the evidence
from the fossil record.
[funny - I'd argue that most knowledgible scientists would disagree...]
According to Darwinism, all creatures are
descended from a common ancestor. Yet the oldest fossils show that
almost all of the major groups of organisms appeared at around the same
time,
[and what is that 'around the same time, Jonny old boy? Gee - could it have
been over the course of MILLIONS OF YEARS??? Yeah, thats 'about the same
time' to the agenda driven creationist!
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 2000 May;75(2):253-95
A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian phyla.
Budd GE, Jensen S
Department of Earth Sciences (Historical Geology & Palaeontology), University
of Uppsala, Sweden. Graham.Budd@pal.uu.se
It has long been assumed that the extant bilaterian phyla generally have
their origin in the Cambrian explosion, when they appear in an essentially
modern form. Both these assumptions are questionable. A strict application of
stem- and crown-group concepts to phyla shows that although the branching
points of many clades may have occurred in the Early Cambrian or before, the
appearance of the modern body plans was in most cases later: very few
bilaterian phyla sensu stricto have demonstrable representatives in the
earliest Cambrian. Given that the early branching points of major clades is
an inevitable result of the geometry of clade diversification, the alleged
phenomenon of phyla appearing early and remaining morphologically static is
seen not to require particular explanation. Confusion in the definition of a
phylum has thus led to attempts to explain (especially from a developmental
perspective) a feature that is partly inevitable, partly illusory. We
critically discuss models for Proterozoic diversification based on small body
size, limited developmental capacity and poor preservation and cryptic
habits, and show that the prospect of lineage diversification occurring early
in the Proterozoic can be seen to be unlikely on grounds of both parsimony
and functional morphology. Indeed, the combination of the body and trace
fossil record demonstrates a progressive diversification through the end of
the Proterozoic well into the Cambrian and beyond, a picture consistent with
body plans being assembled during this time. Body-plan characters are likely
to have been acquired monophyletically in the history of the bilaterians, and
a model explaining the diversity in just one of them, the coelom, is
presented. This analysis points to the requirement for a careful application
of systematic methodology before explanations are sought for alleged patterns
of constraint and flexibility.
+++++++++++++++++++++
from the same jouirnal that Wells' one pertinent paper appears in:
1: Development 1999 Feb;126(5):851-9 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut
Fossils, molecules and embryos: new perspectives on the Cambrian explosion.
Valentine JW, Jablonski D, Erwin DH
Department of Integrative Biology and Museum of Paleontology, University of
California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA. jwv@ucmp1.berkeley.edu
The Cambrian explosion is named for the geologically sudden appearance of
numerous metazoan body plans (many of living phyla) between about 530 and 520
million years ago, only 1.7% of the duration of the fossil record of
animals....
10 MILLION YEARS = 'about the same time' in creationese!]
fully formed and recognizably similar to their modern counterparts.
Darwin's theory predicts a "branching tree" pattern in the fossil record,
yet
that pattern is nowhere to be found.
[BULL! Wells apparentl;y is as sloppy a researcher as he is self-important
(see below); that or he is just making thinhgs up...]
The fossils provide no evidence that
all creatures are descended from a common ancestor. So the two major
claims of Darwinism-that all living things are descended from a common
ancestor and that their differences are due to random variations and
survival of the fittest- are unsupported by evidence.
[LOVE those baseless matter-of-fact statements! Gee, Steve - where are your
requests for evidence from Wells? Or do you acfept the words of fellow
creationists at face value?]
[...]
==================================================================
HX>I sort of doubt it - this sort of religious claptrap would act to knock
down
>his 'scientific' reasoning, it seems.....
Huxter is one of those from the Calvin Reflector I was referring to, whose
modus operandi is mostly ridicule and abuse.
=====================
Please stop lying about me Steve. I understand that THAT is one of the
primary M.O.s of the creationist crowd, but I can do without your slander
here. I will gladly repost your attemtps at dodging and sympathy-ploys here
for everyione to se, if you'd like.
======================
This is a pity because Huxter is in fact one of the few practising
biological scientists on the reflector (he has a Ph.D in Anatomy and Cell
Biology, minoring in Physical
Anthropology.
=======================
Well, that is one accurate statement!
=======================
One would therefore think that Huxter's posts would be full of facts about
evolution but strangely (?) that is not the case. A prime example is
Huxter's
posts about Jonathan Wells, rather than refute Well's evidence against
evolution, Huxter prefers to attack Wells personally. Huxter has attacked
Wells' for a number of peripheral things, including: 1) Wells' number of
publications in scientific journals (he has in fact had three);
=========================
More lies and propaganda friom Steve. I have never said Wells had less than
three publications. I will repost one of my earliest replies to you - where
I OFFERED TO PROVIDE information to you and you rebuffed me - said that if 'I
wanted to post something to go ahead.' Of course, when I did post 'facts',
you saiod itr wasn't quite what you were looking for. I asked you to
actually ask a question and I would answer it - you refuised and instead went
on to throw a pity-party fopr yourself, claiming that I was just trying to
'put down the layman.' Give us all a break...
==========================
2) Wells' use of Berkeley University in his signature to imply he is still
there (Wells signs his name as at the Discovery Institute but some
journalists still refer to him as
at Berkeley); and now 3) Wells' being a member of the Moonies.
========================
No, no, no Steve - WELLS still referred to HIMSELF as being from Berkeley -
why did YOU edit out that part from his self -aggrandixing article? Here are
some intersting things from the article that Steve leaves out (for obvious
reasons):
"Since completing my second Ph.D. a few months ago, I have taught embryology
at a state college and am now a post-doctoral research biologist at Berkeley,
writing articles critical of Darwinism. I am one of a growing number of
highly-educated and articulate critics of Darwinism, located in universities
all over North America, who stay in touch via the internet and occasionally
join forces at academic conferences. "
WHERE ARE THESE ARTICLES? I will tell you all - they are NOT in actual
scientific journals!
"Unfortunately, the North American science-and-religion establishment has
largely turned a deaf ear to these critics, preferring instead to abandon
classical theology and embrace metaphysical materialism and moral relativism.
But I see the situation as analogous to the last years of Soviet communism. A
small, powerful elite controls all the official information outlets while the
evidence against the official position swells quietly, like a wave building
offshore. Someday soon, to the surprise of many people in academia and the
media, the wave will break. I predict that the Darwinist establishment will
come apart at the seams, just as the Soviet Empire did in 1990."
So, like most creationsits, Wells sees this as a polito-religious crusade,
rather than a scientific one, and Steve and his ilk have fallen for it.
=============================
His argument (if one can call it that) is that because Wells is a Moonie his
arguments for ID and against evolution should be ignored. That Huxter's
argument is a simple `shoot the messenger' ad hominem is clear because
Huxter also rejects the scientific reasoning of those IDers who agree with
Wells but are not Moonies. IOW if Wells ceased being a Moonie, but still
believed the same scientific reasoning, then Huxter would still reject it.
So
Wells being a Moonie has nothing to do with Huxter's argument against
Wells and ID's scientific reasoning-it is a simple ad hominem aimed at
discrediting Wells and ID by a crude McCathyist `guilt by association'
tactic.
====================
More of Steve's aspersion casting. Please - for what is it - the 3rd or 4th
tiume? - do not try to tell me or anyone what I think. Primarily because, as
in your science, here you are wrong. I cannot counter Wells' claims
scientifically because he makes no sc ientific claims. Read his articles -
they are emotional appeals littered with a few scientific words here and
there. I only pointed out Wells Moonie status because it revealed a specific
agenda - he explicitly claims to have got his second degree for the sole
purpose of 'destroying Darwinism'. I asked you before and you, surpsrise
surprise, could not or would nat answer - can you name a single person that
worked toward a doctorate for the sole purpose of 'destroying' a theory that
they disagree with? Since I rejected Wells' non-arguments long before I knew
of hic cult membership, your simplistic analysis is moot. Discovering that
he explicitly stated his anti-scientific agenda was the purpose behind his
'research' was simply icing on the cake. In science, it is difficult to
regain your credibility when you made extraordinary claims and cannot provide
anything but emotional appeals and carefully selected quotes to support it -
especially when you had little to begin with and then state - boast of - your
philosophical bias and religious agenda which taints your perceptions.
===========================
Huxter seems still labouring under a misapprehension that ID is a
*religious* position and therefore one's private unorthodox "religious"
opinions would automatically discredit it.
========================
ID IS a religious position, protestations notwithstanfding. Where are the
non-religious ID advocates Steve? Look at the ID hierarchy - religious
(indeed, mostly YECs) all! And members of organizations whose goals are to
re-infect society with their religion.
If ID were this paragon of scientific evidence and reason, WHERE IS IT ALL?
If Dembski has 'discovered' ID in nature, why won't he tell anyone where it
is?
========================
But while most (not all) IDers are religious, ID itself is not a religious
position. Evidence of this is: 1) the wide range of religious positions held
by IDers, including Christian (Protestant [Johnson, Nelson], Catholic
[Behe] and Eastern Orthodox [Dembski, Reynolds]); Jewish [Spetner,
Berlinski]; Unification [Wells]; and 2) non-religious positions held by some
IDers, including agnostic [Denton, Todd Moody].
=========================
Oh, well, Denton and Moody.... I guess I'd better hop on the bandwagon - two
supposedly agnostic IDers! There must REALLY be something to it all! Of
course, Denton is ignorant of how to analyse molecular data and seems to have
simply invenyted some in his new book (more later), I can safely discard his
views - which, like Behe's and all other ID writers', went instead into the
lay press rather than scientific peer-review . Never heard of Moody.
========================
In the case of Wells, Phil Johnson has been aware from the beginning that
Wells was a Moonie, because Wells told him upfront that he was.
Johnson could have reacted like a hypocritical `church politician' fearful
of
`what others might think', but to his credit he acted consistently with his
position that ID is not a religious movement with a test of religious
orthodoxy, and he welcomed Wells into the ID movement.
=====================
Are the views of a religious lawyer at all relevent here?
====================
In one of my posts on this I wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- On Mon, 06 Dec 1999 05:59:44 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote: [...] SJ>Why should the ID movement "take note of Well's religion"? It is nothing >to do with the ID movement. > >GM>How would anyone know this supposedly 'well known' fact that Johnson >>speaks of? It never appeared in any bio that I am aware of. It always >>seemed to be omitted! Frankly, I don't think the ID movement has been >>forthcoming and open with the Christian community in this regard. > SJ>I was not aware that Jonathan was a Moonie, but then why should I? I am >not aware of what religion the other ID leaders are, except Johnson, a >Presbyterian and Behe a Catholic. It is simply not relevant to the ID >movement what religion one has, or even if one has a religion. > >Indeed it reflects great credit on Johnson that he is not a man-fearing >hypocrite in this. Johnson knew from the very beginning that Wells was a >Moonie because Wells was honest and up-front and told him. Johnson >could have been like many a church-politician and calculated the PR >problems it could cause him and given Wells the brush-off. But Johnson is >refreshingly consistent. He says that what religion one is doesn't matter to >the ID movement and now he has proved it! > >Personally it just enhances my already deep respect for Johnson. He >*really* means what he says, and says what he means. [...] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ironically evolutionists have made much in the past of how some creationist organisations have required their adherents to sign a statement of Christian beliefs, yet here we have Huxter trying to discredit ID because it *does not* have such a test of religious orthodoxy!
======================= Oh boy! Steve got me! Tee Hee! ID discredits itself by not having anything positive for its tenets. ================= As an evangelical Christian I would disagree with the private religious positions of many of my fellow IDers. But ID is not itself a religious position, so their private religious views are *irrelevant* to my ID position as mine are to theirs. Steve
==================== So what is it then? Where is the science behind ID? Saying "we don't know how this came to be, so we must conclude that an omnipotnet superbeing designed it" is hardly science. Applying contrived and inapplicable statistical formulas using self-serving defintions is nto science.
Where is the science? >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Nov 05 2000 - 13:26:17 EST