dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (07/18/85)
"I am a creationist." Theodosius Dobzhansky, American Biology Teacher, March 1973. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "More agonizing, less organizing." |
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (07/20/85)
Mike Huybensz suggested that I follow up on the items in this series by posting the quotations *within* their contexts. I think that that is a fine idea, and plan to do so. Here is the context from the last entry. "Antievolutionists fail to understand how natural selection operates. They fancy that all existing species were generated by supernatural fiat a few thousand years ago, pretty much as we find them today. But what is the sense of having as many as 2 or 3 million species living on earth? If natural selection is the main factor that brings evolution about, any number of species is understandable: natural selection does not work according to a foreordained plan, and species are produced not because they are needed for some purpose but simply because there is an environmental opportunity and genetic wherewithal to make them possible. Was the Creator is a jocular mood when he made _Psilopa petrolei_ for California oil-fields and species of _Drosophila_ to live exclusively on some body-parts of certain land crabs on only certain islands in the Caribbean? The organic diversity becomes, however, reasonable and understandable if the Creator has created the living word not by caprice but by evolution propelled by natural selection. It is wrong to hold creation and evolution as mutually exclusive alternatives. I am a creationist _and_ an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's, method of Creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 B.C; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way." Theodosius Dobzhansky, American Biology Teacher, March 1973, 35(3), 125-159. Quotation from p127.. Comment: Dobzhansky falls into the error of supposing that he knows what a creator would do, in asking what the good of having 2 or 3 million species is. How does he know? We cannot say one way or the other, without some form of revelation, which, I think, Dobzhansky would not claim to be party to. The "sensibility" or lack of it, of 2 or 3 million species leads to another problem with this statement, i.e., that creationists suppose that all species came into existence pretty much as we find them. First of all, creationists typically suppose things not about species, but about "kinds". Whatever a "kind" is, and we can perhaps agree that a tight treatment of that has not been posted here, it is *not* synomymous with "species". Secondly, Dobzhansky comes very close to identifying creationists with the "creation of invariant organisms" hypothesis in saying, "pretty much as we find them today". It is difficult to say just how close he means to come to "no variation" with this statement, but no creationist believes that there is no variation of organisms over time. This is a straw man set up time and time again by evolutionists - from at least the time of Darwin, right down to the present day. Many creationists (including myself) recognize speciation. Some creationists (including myself) feel that the variation of organisms over time is of great importance. Speaking strictly for myself, I feel that the variation of organisms *without* reference to time, is of perhaps greater importance. But that does not mean that there is any acceptance by creationists of the idea that the variation extends across all classificatory boundaries, as evolutionists maintain. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "More agonizing, less organizing." |
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (07/22/85)
In article <1310@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > Dobzhansky falls into the error of supposing that he knows what a > creator would do, in asking what the good of having 2 or 3 million > species is. How does he know? We cannot say one way or the other, > without some form of revelation, which, I think, Dobzhansky would not > claim to be party to. Quite true. However, it does stagger belief. (Reminds me of Time Bandits, where Evil is sneering that God created numerous species of slugs. He would have created microcircuits or lasers first....) > The "sensibility" or lack of it, of 2 or 3 million species leads to > another problem with this statement, i.e., that creationists suppose > that all species came into existence pretty much as we find them. > First of all, creationists typically suppose things not about species, > but about "kinds". Whatever a "kind" is, and we can perhaps agree that > a tight treatment of that has not been posted here, it is *not* > synomymous with "species". Secondly, Dobzhansky comes very close to > identifying creationists with the "creation of invariant organisms" > hypothesis in saying, "pretty much as we find them today". It is > difficult to say just how close he means to come to "no variation" with > this statement, but no creationist believes that there is no variation > of organisms over time. This is a straw man set up time and time > again by evolutionists - from at least the time of Darwin, right down > to the present day. No straw man: this actually has been a position held by some creationists. Creationist literature has an enormous pre-Gish (antediluvian? :-)) history. You don't hear about it much because most modern creationists would be embarrassed by it, and because (unlike creationists) scientists opposing creationism seldom dig up and attack ancient arguments while implying they are current. I strongly doubt that you can exclude invariant species (kinds are a recent creationist invention) from the welter of positions of creationists today. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) (07/24/85)
>[Paul DuBois] > >Mike Huybensz suggested that I follow up on the items in this series >by posting the quotations *within* their contexts. I think that that >is a fine idea, and plan to do so. Here is the context from the last >entry. Good idea. I've been enjoying these postings, but wishing I knew how they occured. (Well, wish no longer... :-) Keep it up, Paul. Anyway, I have some comments (mostly questions, really) on your comments on Dobzhansky's comments. > [Paul quotes Dobzhansky on recent-creationism being inconsistent with > the number and variety of species on earth, and the possibility of > creation by evolution (theistic evolution).] > >Comment: > >Dobzhansky falls into the error of supposing that he knows what a >creator would do, in asking what the good of having 2 or 3 million >species is. How does he know? We cannot say one way or the other, >without some form of revelation, which, I think, Dobzhansky would not >claim to be party to. This is a common problem with theories involving omnipotent beings. Some time ago, I described 3 ways a scientific theory could deal with supernatural beings: 1) By assuming the being is not omnipotent, and placing limits on its powers. 2) By assuming some sort of psychological model for the being, thus placing limits on its behavior. 3) By assuming that the being didn't interfere with the area under study. with #3 being by far the most commonly used. #3, however, clearly does not apply in this case, and #1 is possible, but highly improbable. Thus, #2 is the only way (that I can think of) of dealing with a creator scientifically. It is used, to some extent, by creationists (recall descriptions of 'why God did this-and-such', e.g. light from distant stars being visible because God wanted us to be able to navigate). Every use of this that I have ever seen was highly intuitive, and therefore unreliable. In other words, I agree with you that Dobzhansky is skating on thin ice, but doesn't one have to to deal with creation scientifically? > [...] Secondly, Dobzhansky comes very close to >identifying creationists with the "creation of invariant organisms" >hypothesis in saying, "pretty much as we find them today". It is >difficult to say just how close he means to come to "no variation" with >this statement, but no creationist believes that there is no variation >of organisms over time. The reason for this is that creationists seem to reject the mechanisms of evolution -- beneficial mutations and natural selection -- without putting forth any other explanations for the microevolution we observe today. Actually, this isn't true. Although many creationists attack natural selection, they also seem to include it in their theories. In his discussion of natural selection, Henry Morris goes so far as to say The shift from predominant light coloration to predominant dark coloration in the peppered moth, with the increasingly smoky atmosphere and darkening of the tree trunks during the industrial revolution, likewise is a striking confirmation of the creation model. -- "The Troubled Waters of Evolution", H. M. Morris, pp 87 But without at least neutral mutations, there won't be enough genetic variation within a population for natural selection to do very much. Since there were only 2 animals of each kind on the ark, there should be minimal variation (except for the genetic load, but in the creationist theory, that's uniformly harmful, and therefore selected against). So my question is, how does this variation arise? > [...] But that does not >mean that there is any acceptance by creationists of the idea that the >variation extends across all classificatory boundaries, as >evolutionists maintain. This raises yet another question: why should there be limits to variation? This question is hard to answer without knowing the mechanism of variation, but since creationists are so insistent on the existance of these limits, I think it's appropriate to ask it anyway. -- Human: Gordon Davisson ARPA: gordon@uw-june.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,decvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon
peter@kitty.UUCP (Peter DaSilva) (07/31/85)
> Comment: > > Dobzhansky falls into the error of supposing that he knows what a > creator would do, in asking what the good of having 2 or 3 million > species is. How does he know? We cannot say one way or the other, > without some form of revelation, which, I think, Dobzhansky would not > claim to be party to. And since we don't know what a creator would do, creationism cannot predict anything except through the sort of second-guessing you're reviling. Thus creationism isn't a scientific theory. You can believe in it if you want, but don't presume to call it science.
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (08/06/85)
In article <198@kitty.UUCP> peter@kitty.UUCP (Peter DaSilva) writes: >> Comment: >> >> Dobzhansky falls into the error of supposing that he knows what a >> creator would do, in asking what the good of having 2 or 3 million >> species is. How does he know? We cannot say one way or the other, >> without some form of revelation, which, I think, Dobzhansky would not >> claim to be party to. > >And since we don't know what a creator would do, creationism cannot predict >anything except through the sort of second-guessing you're reviling. Thus >creationism isn't a scientific theory. You can believe in it if you want, >but don't presume to call it science. We don't know what a creator "would" do, but we do know what a creator "did" do. Thus creationism is based on observation of the creation. Example: We can observe that the creator created man with a potential for variation in characteristics. (height, weight, eye color, skin etc.) However, the genetic menu is limited. Man has never given birth to an ape. (Observation) Prediction: No genetic potential for producing an ape. This is verified in studies of genetics. Since man does not have the genetic potential for producing an ape offspring, this could offer evidence that man and ape are genetically unrelated and separate creations. Dan
gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) (08/09/85)
>>>[Paul Dubois] >>> Dobzhansky falls into the error of supposing that he knows what a >>> creator would do [...] How does he know? >>[Peter DaSilva] >>And since we don't know what a creator would do, creationism cannot predict >>anything except through the sort of second-guessing you're reviling. Thus >>creationism isn't a scientific theory. You can believe in it if you want, >>but don't presume to call it science. >[Dan Boskovich] >We don't know what a creator "would" do, but we do know what a creator >"did" do. Thus creationism is based on observation of the creation. Ah, then you agree with Peter. Since we cannot guess what the creator would do, we cannot predict anything, just observe. Also, since *any* observation can be explained by "God did it. We don't know why, but he did it," your theory of creationism is completely unfalsifiable. And unscientific. >Example: We can observe that the creator created man with a potential >for variation in characteristics. (height, weight, eye color, skin etc.) >However, the genetic menu is limited. Man has never given birth to an >ape. (Observation) Prediction: No genetic potential for producing an ape. I don't see what this has to do with creation theory. It's simple logic (based on a rather questionable observation, but that's a different issue). Why does creation theory get the credit for this? -- Human: Gordon Davisson ARPA: gordon@uw-june.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,decvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (08/09/85)
In article <373@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > We don't know what a creator "would" do, but we do know what a creator > "did" do. Thus creationism is based on observation of the creation. Whether or not a "creator" is responsible for what we observe is the question under scrutiny. It really isn't kosher, from a scientific standpoint, to build your conclusion into your assumptions. > Example: We can observe that the creator created man with a potential > for variation in characteristics. (height, weight, eye color, skin etc.) > However, the genetic menu is limited. Man has never given birth to an > ape. (Observation) Prediction: No genetic potential for producing an ape. > This is verified in studies of genetics. Since man does not have the > genetic potential for producing an ape offspring, this could offer evidence > that man and ape are genetically unrelated and separate creations. You have to define Ape more carefully here. As there are those of us who see man as a type of ape, we would say that men give birth to apes every day. Just what characteristics are you using to define Ape? (I know, I know, characteristics that men don't have...) As far as I can tell, you are building your conclusions into your model again. GIGO. Little wonder you guys sit spinning your wheels so long. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
fritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger) (08/09/85)
> Since man does not have the genetic potential for producing an ape >offspring, this could offer evidence that man and ape are genetically >unrelated and separate creations. > > Dan Unfortunately, Dan, this posting shows (me, at least), that you really have not learned any biology or genetics from reading this net. Sequence studies, both at the protein and DNA levels, skeletal similarities, etc, etc, etc all show that man is very closely related to apes. Isn't there a quote somewhere about no one being so blind as those who will not see? -- Dave Fritzinger Public Health Research Institute NY,NY {allegra!phri!fritz} "Blasting, billowing, bursting forth with the power of 10 billion butterfly sneezes..." Moody Blues
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/12/85)
> In article <198@kitty.UUCP> peter@kitty.UUCP (Peter DaSilva) writes: > >> Comment: > >> > >> Dobzhansky falls into the error of supposing that he knows what a > >> creator would do, in asking what the good of having 2 or 3 million > >> species is. How does he know? We cannot say one way or the other, > >> without some form of revelation, which, I think, Dobzhansky would not > >> claim to be party to. > > > >And since we don't know what a creator would do, creationism cannot predict > >anything except through the sort of second-guessing you're reviling. Thus > >creationism isn't a scientific theory. You can believe in it if you want, > >but don't presume to call it science. > > We don't know what a creator "would" do, but we do know what a creator > "did" do. Thus creationism is based on observation of the creation. But it doesn't explain why the creation is the way it is. Can you give me an explanation in creationist terms for the similarity between Homo Sapiens and Pan Troglodytes that doesn't reduce to "Because god wanted it that way"? -- Peter da Silva (the mad Australian) UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (08/15/85)
In article <388@phri.UUCP> fritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger) writes: >> Since man does not have the genetic potential for producing an ape >>offspring, this could offer evidence that man and ape are genetically >>unrelated and separate creations. >> >> Dan > >Unfortunately, Dan, this posting shows (me, at least), that you really have >not learned any biology or genetics from reading this net. Sequence studies, >both at the protein and DNA levels, skeletal similarities, etc, etc, etc >all show that man is very closely related to apes. Isn't there a quote ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (common design) >somewhere about no one being so blind as those who will not see? >-- >Dave Fritzinger Reminds me of that old saying, So CLOSE, yet SO FAR AWAY! Dan
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/19/85)
Look, you can say "man is like an ape because of common design", but that still
doesn't explain why god used a common design for "the lord of creation" and a
relatively insignificant species. All it is saying is "man is like an ape
because god made it so", right?
Why did god make it so?
In what other cases are you likely to find such a similarity?
Why are there so many differences between the Thylacine and the Dingo, when
they obviously serve the same purpose and thus should have a common design?
Why are marsupials (which are much less efficient than placental mammals)
still around?
Why did god create them in the first place?
If all you can say is "that's the way it is because that's the way it is",
which is what arguments about "common design" reduce to, then you're not
talking about a scientific theory. You may be right, but what you're doing
isn't science:
You, by your own admission, can't restrict god.
Thus you can't say what he can and cannot do, or will and will not do.
Thus you can't make any predictions.
If you can't make any predictions (say about what one might find on a yet
undiscovered island or another planet), then...
IT ISN'T SCIENCE! SO DON'T CALL IT THAT!
As I said. You may be entirely right. But that's a matter for the theologians,
not the biologists. Don't expect anyone to teach it as science outside of a
parochial school.
--
Peter da Silva (the mad Australian werewolf)
UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter
MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (08/19/85)
>In article <388@phri.UUCP> fritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger) writes: >>> Since man does not have the genetic potential for producing an ape >>>offspring, this could offer evidence that man and ape are genetically >>>unrelated and separate creations. >>> >>> Dan >> >>Unfortunately, Dan, this posting shows (me, at least), that you really have >>not learned any biology or genetics from reading this net. Sequence studies, >>both at the protein and DNA levels, skeletal similarities, etc, etc, etc >>all show that man is very closely related to apes. Isn't there a quote > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > (common design) >>somewhere about no one being so blind as those who will not see? >>-- >>Dave Fritzinger > > Reminds me of that old saying, > > So CLOSE, yet SO FAR AWAY! > > Dan I think I see why Dan is missing the point that people have been trying to make. Let me say first that Dan is right about one thing: The similarity between Man and Ape at the various levels is consistent with both being due to a common design by a Creator. I hope he will agree that the similarities are also consistent with evolution from a common ancestor. However, consistency is only part of the story. While it is true that the observed facts are *consistent* with both explanations, it is NOT true that the observations constitute *evidence for* both explanations. In fact, the observations constitute *evidence for evolution*, but they do NOT constitute *evidence for creation*. Let me explain myself. Suppose we had observed a different situation. For example, the hemoglobins of Chimpanzee and Man are virtually identical, but because of the fact that there are 64 "letters" in the DNA alphabet and only 20 amino acids, there are literally billions of ways DNA could have coded for this particular sequence of amino acids. Chimpanzee hemoglobin could have been coded for by one DNA sequence, and Human hemoglobin by an entirely different one. What would be the consequences for Evolution and Creation of such an observation? Such an observation, if it were to be confirmed, would be devastating for the evolutionary hypothesis. Because of this fact, Duane Gish frequently tries to make debating points by claiming that Bullfrog and Human blood proteins are more similar than Chimpanzee and Human blood proteins. The fact that these claims are false is immaterial; Gish recognizes that if such differences could be found, particularly at the DNA level where evolution must be controlled, it would be impossible to reconcile them with evolution. Thus evolution makes the very strong logical connection: If (Man and Ape evolved from a common ancestor in the recent past, as is claimed by evolutionary theory) Then (at the DNA level, Man and Ape must be very similar). However, Creationism offers us no corresponding logical connection. In fact, as Gish explicitly recognizes in his debates, there would be no contradiction at all with Creationism if his claims about Bullfrog proteins were correct. One could simply say that the Creator designed it that way. Creationism is therefore consistent with *any conceivable observation that could be made about the similarity or dissimilarity of Human and Ape blood proteins or their corresponding DNA sequences*. It "takes no risks" from an experiment which tests this similarity, because no matter *how* the experiment turns out, Creationism would be consistent with it. Not so evolution. Every time an experiment of the kind I described is performed (and they are being performed in laboratories all the time), evolution is at risk. If a sufficient number of experiments of this sort turned out to contradict the predictions of evolution, then evolution would become an untenable hypothesis. But by the same token, every time the similarity of DNA sequences for similar proteins is *confirmed*, evolution gets a reward: It is strengthened and confirmed in its turn, and another piece of evidence FOR evolution has been found. Creationism, on the other hand, *takes no risks, so it reaps no reward*. Creationism is NOT strengthened by observations of DNA sequences, because Creationism makes no predictions about how such experiments should turn out. The experiments are *irrelevant* to Creationism. Therefore, the results of such experiments *are not evidence for Creationism*. This is an essential difference between science and non-science. In this newsgroup I have called repeatedly for "scientific evidence for creation". By 'scientific' I mean evidence of a concrete, physical nature: fossils, DNA sequences, black marks on an astronomical plate, meter readings and the like, things that you can see and touch, and phenomena that can be independently reproduced. These are the sorts of things that scientists can sink their teeth into, the sorts of things that can be replicated, the sorts of things of which other examples remain to be discovered. By 'evidence for' I mean evidence of a kind that poses a potential *risk* to Creationism. If it doesn't matter to Creationism *how* the experiment turns out, then it doesn't matter how well the alleged "evidence" agrees with the Creation model: The assertion that it is "evidence for Creationism" is vacuous. So, Creationists, if you want to demonstrate that Creationism is a science, then you have to produce *scientific evidence for creationism*, as described above. So far I haven't seen any. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) (08/23/85)
>> >>Unfortunately, Dan, this posting shows (me, at least), that you really have >>not learned any biology or genetics from reading this net. Sequence studies, >>both at the protein and DNA levels, skeletal similarities, etc, etc, etc >>all show that man is very closely related to apes. Isn't there a quote > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>somewhere about no one being so blind as those who will not see? >>Dave Fritzinger > > Reminds me of that old saying, > So CLOSE, yet SO FAR AWAY! > Dan When the DNA differences are less than 1% its too close to naysay the possibility. P.M.Pincha-Wagener