carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (05/29/85)
Padraig Houlahan writes: > I have challenged Paul DuBois' assertion that either creationism is correct > or evolution is, on the grounds that such a claim is incorrect, and not > scientific. After repeated reminders there has been no retraction. > This is pretty damning evidence of creationist sincerity to engage > in serious debate, and of their ability to think scientifically. Evolutionists are prone to fall into the delusion that they are engaged in a serious, rational, and scientific discussion with creationists, of the sort that evolutionists are accustomed to engage in with their colleagues, students, and scientifically inclined friends. But net.origins provides abundant evidence that creationists are playing by different rules. Read on. Paul DuBois writes: > But what > sort of prediction is it when one "predicts" it after *observing* the > (generally) hierarchical arrangement of organisms? One hardly needs > evolution to "predict" an underlying similarity. One needs evolution to EXPLAIN the underlying similarities. Scientists often use "predict" in the sense of explaining an observation. For example, general relativity "predicts" the precise orbit of Mercury, long after its orbit has been observed with precision. In other words, relativity *explains* the orbit of Mercury, as Newtonian theory does not. > I also doubt very much whether non-uniformity would actually be taken > to falsify anything. We can see this by asking what would happen if > this basic prediction failed. Would it be evidence against evolution? > Nope. Why? Because it would merely show that the origin of life > occurred more that once, and in different ways - all of which would be > evolutionary ways, of course. This is a complete misunderstanding of the concept of falsifiability. See below. > This is similar to the statement that's been thrown around about > fossils of higher animals being found in early strata. It has been > said that this would falsify evolution. It wouldn't. All that > happens is that the interpretation is changed to "it appears that this > organism evolved earlier than was formerly realized. Clearly then, > it must have earlier ancestors than was supposed." Paul appears to believe that "falsifiability" means the possibility of the discovery of some one fact that by itself would deal a death blow to evolution and cause all honest scientists to abandon it as soon as they learned of the discovery. If that is what "falsifiability" means, then no scientific theory is falsifiable. In fact, Paul's argument above can be used to attack the round-earth theory, and undoubtedly is used for this purpose by the flat-earthers. Let me illustrate. Suppose someone invented a new and powerful type of telescope, aimed it across the Atlantic today, and saw the Eiffel Tower in a direct line of sight. Suppose that this observation was well confirmed, so that there was no doubt of its validity. Does Paul really believe that all honest scientists would rise as one and declare that the roundness of the earth has been disproved? Apparently he does, because if they tried to interpret the observation in a round-earth framework (for instance, by searching for a hitherto unknown type of atmospheric refraction) Paul would declare that they are engaging in the same sort of circular reasoning of which he accuses evolutionists. But of course that's nonsense -- any rational scientist would try to fit the observation into a round-earth paradigm, simply because the evidence that the earth is round is so enormous and incontrovertible -- or, to say the same thing in other words, because the round-earth theory has such immense explanatory power compared to the flat-earth, cubic-earth, concave-earth, or any other theories yet devised. The round-earth theory is *falsifiable*, like all truly scientific theories, because it is a TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS. The same is the case with respect to evolution. If *Australopithecus* remains were discovered in Precambrian strata, no intelligent biologist would jump to the conclusion that evolution has been blown out of the water. He/she would search for an explanation compatible with evolutionary theory as currently understood; if no such explanation could be found, THEN the theory would have to be modified or replaced by another paradigm. But no single anomaly is likely to overthrow evolution, since it possesses immense explanatory power compared with any alternative yet proposed. The problems that would be posed for evolution by finding hominid remains in Precambrian strata are as nothing compared with the problems posed for creationism by mountains of facts already known, which is why the separate-creation doctrine was abandoned a century ago. For biologists to return to creationism because of a single anomaly would be like curing dandruff with bubonic plague. What are we to make of the fact that Paul, after all this time, and after he has presumably read dozens of articles and books on creation and evolution, still apparently does not understand falsifiability, a very basic concept in the philosophy of science? I take it as an instance of a point that cannot be overemphasized in this newsgroup, that CREATIONISTS DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF SCIENCE, and in fact seem allergic to understanding it. Don't get me wrong: I believe that creationists in general are decent people who love their families and dogs, and there are no grounds for adopting a position of moral superiority towards them. But it is important to understand the futility of attempting to engage in scientific debate with them, since they either do not understand, or reject, the basic rules of scientific reasoning. A good analogy would be: trying to play chess with someone who is trying to play checkers. You can point out that your opponent is breaking all the rules of chess, but it makes no difference to your opponent, who thinks *you're* cheating. Of course it is important to refute the arguments of the creationists, but evolutionists should bear in mind that it is impossible to convince confirmed creationists ON THE BASIS OF SCIENTIFIC REASONING, for the simple reason that if they were susceptible to being convinced by such reasoning, they would not be creationists in the first place. They are playing a different game, perhaps even a better game, but a different one. --Richard Carnes
jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (05/29/85)
> But it is important to understand > the futility of attempting to engage in scientific debate with them, > since they either do not understand, or reject, the basic rules of > scientific reasoning. I agree with the above statement. Recent discussion of the second law of thermodynamics on the net demonstrates how creationist are attempting to twist this law "to prove their point". However, we cannot ignore creatinists as we ignore flat-earthers. Creationist are a political/religious force that can do serious damage to science just as Lysencoism damaged scientific progress in the USSR. We have to remember that most people in the US including polititians have very little understanding of science. The creationist are trying to appeal to the uninformed who cannot distinguish between science and pseudoscience. -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T-IS Naperville, Illinois, (312)-979-7321, Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho