pmd@cbscd5.UUCP (06/22/83)
>From "Origins Research" Spring/Summer 1983
A REPLY TO NILES ELDREDGE
by Jerry Kelly
In his new book, "The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at
Creationism" (Washington Square Press, 1982), Niles Eldredge
challenges creationism as being a religion because it:
invokes faith (pg. 18)
claims to know the ultimate truth (pg. 18,28,78)
clings to the wisdom and world views of archaic Near
Eastern culture (pg. 22)
is based on pseudoscience (pg. 149,91)
is nonfalsifiable (pg. 22)
invokes the supernatural, i.e. mystical powers (pg. 10)
The intent of this article is not to falsify his challenge, but
rather to show how science/evolution exhibits all points except
one. And this one point is the crux of the origins controversy
(Natural vs. Supernatural).
SCIENTIFIC FAITH
What place does faith have in science? Eldredge claims that science
has no place for faith. "It (science) depends upon observation, accepts
nothing on faith, and acknowledges that it can never claim to know the
ultimate truth" (pg 18). Again Eldredge states: "But of course, science
is not a belief system" (pg. 27).
For most, the word faith implies a mental exercise in an environment of
pure ignorance. Blind faith is probably what Eldredge had in mind.
However, he should be reminded that faith can be based on evidence. To
the uninitiated, the accusation of faith in creationism is easy to accept,
because for some Christians and Jews the literal translation of Genesis
suffices as an explanation for origins. To state that all creationists
therefore exercise blind faith is a gross overstatement. Some
creationists have evidence for their faith.
The study of evolution is in many ways a scientific endeavor, but
this does not exempt the evolutionist from faith exercises. As an
example consider the spontaneous generation scenario.
Many evolutionists except the notion that random processes alone
are sufficient to develop living systems. This acceptance can be
classified as blind faith for several reasons:
spontaneous generation has never been demonstrated.
random processes are the driving force for spontaneous
generation. Natural selection is only applicable to living systems.
no complete chemical process is known. (If on knows of detailed
molecular arguments of the self organization of matter starting
from Miller's amino acid soup to a simple bacteria, please at the
very least cite the references.)
Belief in the self-organization of matter is maintained even in light of
the fact that complex organic molecules are not stable. Most
evolutionists express their faith on some basis of "scientific continuity".
One only has to review the history of "science" to see other cases of blind
faith. Nebraska man was constructed from only a single tooth of an extinct
pig. The Piltdown man was a fraudulent construction that was not
completely dropped until 40 years after it's discovery.
Blind faith should always be held in contempt, however, faith with evidence
is very necessary for model building. It may be called intellectual
speculation or an extrapolation from known data. In his day, it was
acceptable for J.J. Thomson to hold the "Plum Pudding" model of the atom.
ULTIMATE KNOWLEDGE - MACROEVOLUTION
Evolutionists have readily accepted macroevolution on the basis of micro-
evolutionary examples. Consider Eldredge's reaction after reviewing the
English peppered moth (Biston betularia): "But I was not prepared to find
creationists--particularly Parker and Gish, perhaps the two most eloquent
creation 'biologists'--actually accepting the moths as examples of small-
scale evolution by natural selection" (pg. 114). Again Eldredge comments,
"Biologists are understandably amazed by such statements. Can creationists
actually admit that evolution occurs and still stick to their creationist
guns and deny that evolution has produced the great diversity of life?
In a word--Yes! (pg.144).
Note that Eldredge makes no distinction between micro- or macroevolution.
Parker and Gish are not so naive as to contradict themselves.
The differentiation to life need not be completely characterized by positive
linear progression, but may in fact be the result of isolated groups which
experienced bounded oscillating characteristics. The creationists have not
blindly accepted the evolutionist's "ultimate knowledge" of macroevolution.
ARCHAIC THEORIES
The accusation that creationism is old does not prove it false. Even
evolutionary thinking goes back to the Greeks. Showing an idea to be old
only illustrates the idea to be old, nothing else. The particle idea
of light was an old idea that was dropped and then later revised.
PSEUDOSCIENCE AND HONESTY
Pseudoscience is an activity characterized by concealing facts which could
jeopardize one's pet model. This has been manifested by proponents on both
sides of the origins issue.
On pages 130-131, Eldredge raises a serious challenge concerning Parker's
honesty in correctly reporting interviews with various paleontologists.
On the other hand, I was amazed to see how Eldredge handled the assumptions
associated with the dating process. He offered no justification for
parent/daughter initial ratios or contamination. His main defense was
concerned with decay rates. "Though some laboratory experiments showing
that extremes of temperature and pressure fail to alter decay rates, it is
true that we must make this assumption" (pg.102).
For some of the other laboratories which were able to induce/observe a
decay rate change, the reader may want to consider:
Hensley, W. K., Passet, W. A. Huizenga J. R. "Pressure
Dependence of the Radioactive Decay Constant of Beryllium-7"
Science, Vol. 181, Sept. 21, 1973. (pp. 1164-1165)
Anderson, J. L., "Non-Poisson Distributions Observed During
counting of certain carbon-14 Labeled Organic (Sub) Mono-
layers" Journal of Physical Chemistry, Vol. 76, No. 24 1972.
(pp.3603-3612)
Emery, G. T. "Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates" Annual
Review fo Nuclear Science, Vol. 22, 1972 (pp.165-197)
At the same level of pseudoscience is the activity of misrepresentation.
As on example consider Eldredge's statement that "None of them (creation
scientists) has contributed a single article to any reputable scientific
journal" (pg.83). Robert V. Gentry, Associate Professor of Physics at
Columbia Union College, has contributed a number of scientific papers,
but the cost has been great. (For just three papers the reader may review:
Science Vol 173, pg.727 (1971); Science Vol. 184, pg. 62 (1974); and
Science Vol 194, pg 315 (1976)). There is evidence which strongly suggests
that his National Science Foundation grant was not renewed because of
his stand on creation issues.
Another statement which encourages one to question Eldredge's honesty is
"Creationists are forced to deny the earth is older that a few ten
thousand years" (pg.33). Although many well known creationists are denying
an old earth, not all creationists concur on this issue.
CONCLUSION
Science should always contend for naturalistic explanations. However,
the origins issue may not be completely scientific. Science can not deny
the existence of a supernatural power. Since the concept of God is still
valid, the concept of God's participation in nature is still valid.
(Other philosophical issues may need to be answered.) Thus the concept
of supernatural acts is still valid.
Whatever happened, the evidence is in the rocks. This evidence is in
no way conclusive for macroevolution.
Should the dust ever settle in this controversy, (assuming all the mud
dries up) I predict that neither side will be successful in falsifying
the opponent's model. Before this issue dies, each side will have a
more abundant collection of supportive evidence, and a realization
of faith's involvement.
[end of quote]
Origins Research is an intercampus college newspaper published
bianually by Students of Origins Research, a non-profit organization.
The purpose of the newspaper is to provide a means for students and
educators to critically analyze the evolution and creation models of
origins.
I would encourage all who consider themselves knowledgeable on the
creation/evolution issue to write this organization of subscription
information (free to students or educators, $2.00/yr. otherwise).
The address is:
Origins Research
P.O. Box 203
Goleta CA 93116
They seem to consider both sides of the issue in an objective manner.
Both evolutionists and creationist are encouraged to contribute
articles and letters. The organization seems to have won the respect
of both evolutionists and creationists.
Paul Dubucmark@umcp-cs.UUCP (06/24/83)
random processes are the driving force for spontaneous
generation. Natural selection is only applicable to living systems.
Not so. See reference below.
no complete chemical process is known. (If on knows of detailed
molecular arguments of the self organization of matter starting
from Miller's amino acid soup to a simple bacteria, please at the
very least cite the references.)
John Holland. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems.
University of Michigan Press. 1977.
...They seem to consider both sides of the issue in an objective manner.
Both evolutionists and creationist are encouraged to contribute
articles and letters. The organization seems to have won the respect
of both evolutionists and creationists.
You've got to be kidding. This sample was so slanted I couldn't
walk straight for a week.
--
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!mark
CSNet: mark@umcp-cs
ARPA: mark.umcp-cs@UDel-Relayfutrelle@uiucdcs.UUCP (06/28/83)
#R:cbscd5:-22000:uiucdcs:33000007:000:651 uiucdcs!futrelle Jun 27 14:05:00 1983 Creationism is perfectly fine for those who want to believe it, but to get it taught in public schools as science is insane. We might as well give equal time to people who believe that we were created by Martians in the year 1973 and our memories have just been implanted in us. It would be perfectly alright in America to believe that, but nobody would give it equal time in public schools. The same thing applies to creationism, no matter how widely it is accepted. Teaching children two different things would confuse them. Evolution is widely accepted by scientists and has a great deal of evidence to support it, so it is taught as science.
tim@isrnix.UUCP (07/01/83)
I am not really all that interested in responding to Creationists
attacks on Evolution because I feel it is a waste of time. But I do
find it amusing to contrast Creationists with the anti-Copernicans
who refused to believe that the Earth revolved around the Sun for
200 years after Copernicus presented his theory, largely on the basis
of such Biblical references as Joshua making the Sun stand still,
and so forth. I suppose it will another 150 years (assuming we survive!)
before the Creationists finally give up! They will nitpick with this or
that little detail of exactly how evolution took place, whether it
possibly COULD take place (but of course not wonder at the miraculous
supposed appearance in 7 days of the whole universe!) and forget the
larger picture which is conclusive. The anti-Copernicans did the same
thing, even Tycho Brahe who was one of the best astronomers of his day
wouldn't accept Copernicus theory, and indeed by a lot of diddling he
came up with a model which was ever so slightly better than Copernicus
in explaining the planets motions as they knew them at that time.
But of course he was wrong! So Creationists nitpick about carbon-dating
this fossil was a fake, nobody's found the "missing link" to human
ancestry (tho more links are discovered all the time there's always
one "missing"!) and so forth. But then they will forget to mention that
there are whole geological strata that are nothing but trilobites,
other strata in which there are nothing but dinosaurs and a few
small rodentlike mammals, and so forth-i.e. the conclusive evidence
that well, at this time there nothing but trilobites and then there
nothing but dinosaurs and then there were predominantly mammals.
Hmmmmmm, I think one might assume there was some sort of sequence perhaps
shall we even call it "evolution" from one period to another......
Exactly how that process works evolutionists cannot be sure, but that
there has been some sort of progression or change across the eons is
indubitable. Just as it is indubitable that the Earth revolves around
the Sun. Or would anyone like to argue that point from the Scriptures
as past Christians have done?
Whether Evolution itself is divinely inspired is a good question and
not at all ruled out. Teillhard de Chardin was both a paleontologist
AND a prominent Catholic theologian whose works have pondered exactly
that question-how might evolution have worked into God's processes?
I think Christians would find better use of their time considering that
question than trying to deny established scientfic fact. But as long
as they try to deny it I remain amused......
tim sevener
decvax!pur-ee!iuvax!isrnix!timmat@hou5e.UUCP (07/03/83)
Anyone who is interested in debates of this kind, or who has gotten sick seeing the cover of the National Inquirer at the supermarket checkout should read a magazine called ``The Skeptical Incquirer''. It is published by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims Of the Paranormal (CSICOP) and concerns itself mostly with stories of ``debunking'' of various myths (which are labelled pseudoscince). It is published quarterly, $16.50 (rather immoderate, but woth MUCH more than the Nat'l Inq.). It can be ordered from THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER Box 229, Central Park Station Buffalo NY 14215 Mark Terribile Duke of deNet
pmd@cbscd5.UUCP (07/05/83)
random processes are the driving force for spontaneous
generation. Natural selection is only applicable to living systems.
Not so. See reference below.
no complete chemical process is known. (If on knows of detailed
molecular arguments of the self organization of matter starting
from Miller's amino acid soup to a simple bacteria, please at the
very least cite the references.)
John Holland. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems.
University of Michigan Press. 1977.
What page(s)?
As far as I can see Holland's book does not even mention spontaneous
generation. His book is a mathematical analysis of the adaptation process.
He makes applications to Biology (genetics, i.e. living systems), but these
applications are based on current evolutionary assumptions.
The author of the original article requested arguments for the self
organization of inanimate matter (Miller as gotten as far as producing amino
acids, although his method has been brought into question) into a living,
reproducing, simple bacteria. If random processes are not the driving
force for spontaneous generation, what is? Some kind of intelligence?
Please, when you cite a reference, at least give the page numbers and a
brief description of how the reference applies. No one likes being sent
on a wild goose chase.
...They seem to consider both sides of the issue in an objective manner.
Both evolutionists and creationist are encouraged to contribute
articles and letters. The organization seems to have won the respect
of both evolutionists and creationists.
You've got to be kidding. This sample was so slanted I couldn't
walk straight for a week.
It depends on your point of reference, doesn't it? One could also say that
you may have been walking at a slant all along and the correction felt funny
to you. Seriously, I think you ought to consider the publication as a
whole before you make such a judgement. The article I selected is only
a sample to illustrate the point that belief in evolution requires a fair
amount of faith, as does belief in creation.
Paul Dubucmartin@auvax.UUCP (07/06/83)
In response to the religious individual who wishs to force his absurd views based upon some old scrawled papers upon the net, would he please keep his comments to net.religion where they belong and not in other groups so that people who do not wish to waste their time reading mindless tripe about religion can view miscellaneous information that might be of some interest. Although this is pointed towards one particular letter which I read, people should have the common courtisy to attempt to post to only one news group. I've seen up to seven news groups posted to simultaneously. Don Martin Athabasca University
smb@ulysses.UUCP (07/06/83)
From: martin@auvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion,net.misc Subject: Re: Faith in Evolution. Message-ID: <155@auvax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 5-Jul-83 19:02:35 EDT In response to the religious individual who wishs to force his absurd views based upon some old scrawled papers upon the net, would he please keep his comments to net.religion where they belong and not in other groups so that people who do not wish to waste their time reading mindless tripe about religion can view miscellaneous information that might be of some interest. Although this is pointed towards one particular letter which I read, people should have the common courtisy to attempt to post to only one news group. I've seen up to seven news groups posted to simultaneously. Don Martin Athabasca University No! If an article belongs in more than one group, by all means post it to more than one. You should only draw the line when you're planning to submit to a miscellaneous group and a specific group, and the article isn't a followup to something else. To clear up assorted myths: if an article is posted once, but to multiple groups, it will be transmitted once, stored once, and presented once (the latter holds only if both groups are read during the same readnews session). The ability to post articles to multiple groups was an essential part of the original design, because too many submissions don't fit neatly into one heading. As Mark has mentioned, the real crime is to post the same thing twice. --Steve
mark@umcp-cs.UUCP (07/08/83)
As far as I can see Holland's book does not even mention
spontaneous generation. His book is a mathematical analysis
of the adaptation process.
Your original message did not mention spontaneous generation. You
asked for a detailed analysis of the development of living organisms
from an amino acid soup. (Aside: when I studied at Michigan with
Holland we called this soup Hollandaise sauce. :-) That is exactly
what holland does. He shows how the "not in a billion years (or
15) could random processes develop an eye" arguement is wrong by
detailed analyses of how STABLE ADAPATATIONS speed up the adaptations.
Another way to think of this is that all the way to an eye have
been eye-like adaptations which were a little bit adaptive, and so
stayed around. Once you get a little skew like this in the randomness
(and it doesn't take much) amazing things happen. His favorite
example was the "2-armed bandit problem":
Imagine you are in Los Vegas playing a two armed bandit. You
suspect that one arm may give you better odds in the long but
don't know which one it is. So you must experiment, but at the
same time you must risk your money. How should you allocate your
coins so that you have the maximum expected return? Remember,
the good arm could still give you a long run of bad long, so you
can never cease playing both arms every once in a while...
The solution, Holland shows, is to play the arm which has been
better SO FAR exponentially more often than the other arm.
This means evolution is fast. However, exponentially more often
is not all the time. Every once in a while, play the other arm.
With this play algorithm, you'll always recover from initial bad
guesses about which arm is the good one. What does this have
to do with evolution? The allocation of genes in a gene pool
(population genetics now) corresponds to exactly this exponential
allocation function. That is, the genes corresponding to
more adaptive features will increase exponentially.
Of course, one doesn't actually need genes. Holland has
applied this to the evolution of simple strings of integers
(corresponding to RNA or DNA) under random variations.
It works fine there too. This is what I consider to be
a detailed mechanism of evolution from the Hollandaise sauce
on up.
He makes applications to Biology (genetics, i.e. living
systems), but these applications are based on current
evolutionary assumptions.
The Holland's arguments have nothing to do with current evolutionary
assumptions. They are based on statistics and logic and little
else. It just so happens that when he applies them to genetics
he gets out evolution of biological organisms as a theorem...sorry
if this bothers you.
Please, when you cite a reference, at least give the page
numbers and a brief description of how the reference applies.
No one likes being sent on a wild goose chase.
Goose chase not intended. It seems to me one must understand
Holland's whole approach, that is why I cited no page. His book
is not easy reading.
I think you ought to consider the publication as a whole
before you make such a judgement.
Was not your sample representative? Why did you post it?
The article I selected is only a sample to illustrate the
point that belief in evolution requires a fair amount of
faith, as does belief in creation.
Going to bed each night hoping the sun will rise requires blind
faith. When it doesn't, then I'll deal with it. When I see things
created by a supreme being, then I'll deal with it. But
right now, I see evolution.
--
spoken: mark weiser
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!mark
CSNet: mark@umcp-cs
ARPA: mark.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay