dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (05/24/85)
>>> [Mike Huybensz] >>> I think a pretty fair argument can be made that science was done in spite >>> of that obstructing framework. Great advances were almost always made by >>> rejecting applicable parts of the framework. Nor were the Galileos and >>> Darwins the only scientists who rejected the religious framework. >> [Paul DuBois] >> Of course you can make an argument for it; "Every viewpoint has an >> advocate", as Gould says. Newton, for example, did very good science, >> but his theological works (Principia Mathematica?) were, I recall >> reading somewhere, utter trash theologically. > I hope you intended a smiley after the Principia: it was one of the > foundations of modern calculus. Indeed, I was not sure. That's why I put a question mark. Maybe Principia Theologica? Principia something, I think. > That Newton attempted his own theological explanations which others called > trash hardly implies that he accepted the entire religious framework of his > time. What applicable parts of the religious framework of his time did he > retain in constructing his Laws of Motion? Or did he simply sidestep it > entirely? You said above that advances were made by *rejecting* parts of the framework. What parts of his framework did Newton *reject* that allowed him to do the work that he did? >> On the other hand, investigators such as Cuvier and Linnaeus were >> explicitly motivated by their creationist convictions and made >> significant contributions because of, and not in spite of, their >> interpretive framework. From such we get the foundations of >> paleontology and taxonomy (which, ironically, are now in many >> respects evolutionary disciplines). > I'd like some examples of the above. Their contributions are independant > of creationism and evolution. What applicable parts of the religious > framework of their time did their work need to retain? Or did they simply > sidestep it entirely? Linnaeus believed that he was reconstructing the plan of creation in setting up his classification system. "Linnaeus introduced his system partly as a convenient aid to memory, a means of making comprehensible the diversity of nature. But Linnaeus also had a higher purpose than merely to catalogue nature. He believed that he was uncovering the plan of the Creator. Linnaeus and his followers recognized genera, families, and other categories on the basis of similarities in structure, and believed that each group had a set of features which were its essence, or ideal plan, corresponding to something in the mind of the Creator. Comparative anatomy developed as a means of searching out these ideal plans." [1p303] "Linnaeus believed that each living thing corresponded more or less closely to some ideal model and that by classifying them, he was revealing the grand pattern of creation." [2p283] "Systematics has traditionally been based on attributes of form and pattern. It is possible that Linnaeus, a believer in Special Creation, was influenced by Platonic Idealism, and thus by the idea that 'there are real and unchanging archetypes, the Ideas or Forms, and that the things of this world are mere copies or shadows of reality.'" [3p387] It seems pretty clear that Linnaeus didn't sidestep his religious framework, entirely or even at all. And he did useful work. He even changed his position later on, as a result of new evidence, something creationists are said never to do (since facts don't make a dent in us). Linnaeus believed throughout the time during which most of the work on the development of his taxonomic system was done, that species were each created in exactly the form he found them. It is clearly this view that Darwin argues against in _The Origin_, since he alludes several times to "he who believes in the independent creation of each species". However, even before (well before: ~ 1780) The Origin was published (1856), Linnaeus had modified his ideas as a result of plant hybridization research. > (Actually, there is one perverse [but reputable] group calling themselves > pattern cladists who claim evolution is entirely unnecessary to taxonomy: > that they can discern the characters upon which taxonomy is based without > evolutionary assumptions. Most cladists [including some friends of mine] > think it a crock.) Most majority viewpoints were minority viewpoints at one time. Why are they perverse? (I'm not arguing - just wondering.) It is a safe bet that Linnaeus entertained very few evolutionary assumptions. Was his work a crock? Was he perverse? >> I'm not sure that we can say that such investigators gave any "proof >> of" creation; rather, they assumed it, and proceeded from there. >> Sometimes with very good results. > Creation may have been one of their assumptions: but that assumption was > not necessary to their results. Just as evolution is irrelevant to a lot of research today (e.g., as with the pattern cladists you mentioned above). What does that prove? I didn't say that the assumption of creation was *necessary*. I said it doesn't necessarily result in garbage research. >>>> [DuBois] >>>> Your argument also contains within itself the seeds of its own >>>> destruction. Leaving creationism vague doesn't make it difficult to >>>> challenge. You demonstrate that, by asserting the vagueness, and >>>> attacking creationism on that ground. Your refute yourself! >> >>> [Huybensz] >>> So eager to goad, you leap into erroneous arguments. Difficult is not >>> impossible. No self refutation occurred there. Sheesh. >> >> "Eager to goad"? Speak for yourself, Mike. The argument was that it >> wasn't *difficult*, not that it wasn't impossible. So eager to tell me >> I'm eager to goad, you don't read what I wrote first... > I'll spell out your syllogism to you. "Mike says X is difficult." > "Mike does X." "Therefore it was not difficult, and Mike has contradicted > himself." But what measure of difficulty have you selected? You seem to have forgotten that it was Ernest Hua who said it was difficult. My first paragragh, above, was directed to him, not you. Learn your alphabet before you start giving me spelling lessons. --- References [1] Colin Patterson, "Cladistics and classification", New Scientist, 94, 29 April 1982, 303-306. [2] Helena Curtis, _Biology_, 2nd ed. Worth Publishers, New York, 1976. [3] Soren Lovtrup, "The Evolutionary Species: Fact or Fiction?", Systematic Zoology, 28(3), Sept 1979, 386-392. Lovtrup is quoting Michael Ruse, "Definitions of species in biology", Brit J Phil Sci, 20, 1969, 97-119 [p98]. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | |
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (05/24/85)
> > Linnaeus believed that he was reconstructing the plan of creation in > setting up his classification system. > > "Linnaeus introduced his system partly as a convenient aid to memory, > a means of making comprehensible the diversity of nature. But > Linnaeus also had a higher purpose than merely to catalogue nature. He > believed that he was uncovering the plan of the Creator. Linnaeus and > his followers recognized genera, families, and other categories on the > basis of similarities in structure, and believed that each group had a > set of features which were its essence, or ideal plan, corresponding > to something in the mind of the Creator. Comparative anatomy > developed as a means of searching out these ideal plans." [1p303] > > "Linnaeus believed that each living thing corresponded more or less > closely to some ideal model and that by classifying them, he was > revealing the grand pattern of creation." [2p283] > > "Systematics has traditionally been based on attributes of form and > pattern. It is possible that Linnaeus, a believer in Special > Creation, was influenced by Platonic Idealism, and thus by the idea > that 'there are real and unchanging archetypes, the Ideas or Forms, > and that the things of this world are mere copies or shadows of > reality.'" [3p387] > In other words, Linnaeus believed that nature contained patterns that could be elucidated through careful observation. He shared this belief with virtually all scientists, modern or ancient, religious or atheist. It is a necessary attribute of a good scientist. In adopting evolution biology has done nothing more or less than continue in this tradition. "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (05/28/85)
In article <1136@uwmacc.UUCP> (Paul DuBois) writes: > >>> [Mike Huybensz] > >>> I think a pretty fair argument can be made that science was done in spite > >>> of that obstructing framework. Great advances were almost always made by > >>> rejecting applicable parts of the framework. Nor were the Galileos and > >>> Darwins the only scientists who rejected the religious framework. > > You said above that advances were made by *rejecting* parts of the > framework. What parts of his framework did Newton *reject* that > allowed him to do the work that he did? In Newton's time, motion was thought to occur because of motive forces. Indeed, that was one of the arguments for a creator at the time: to keep the world running. Angels pushed the planets, etc. That's why Newton's laws of motion were to revolutionary: they cast off these superstitions. > >> On the other hand, investigators such as Cuvier and Linnaeus were > >> explicitly motivated by their creationist convictions and made > >> significant contributions because of, and not in spite of, their > >> interpretive framework. From such we get the foundations of > >> paleontology and taxonomy (which, ironically, are now in many > >> respects evolutionary disciplines). > > > I'd like some examples of the above. Their contributions are independant > > of creationism and evolution. What applicable parts of the religious > > framework of their time did their work need to retain? Or did they simply > > sidestep it entirely? > > Linnaeus believed that he was reconstructing the plan of creation in > setting up his classification system. > > "Linnaeus introduced his system partly as a convenient aid to memory, > a means of making comprehensible the diversity of nature. But > Linnaeus also had a higher purpose than merely to catalogue nature. He > believed that he was uncovering the plan of the Creator. Linnaeus and > his followers recognized genera, families, and other categories on the > basis of similarities in structure, and believed that each group had a > set of features which were its essence, or ideal plan, corresponding > to something in the mind of the Creator. Comparative anatomy > developed as a means of searching out these ideal plans." [1p303] Linnaeus' advantage was mostly that he was one of the first botanists to travel and collect widely. This allowed him to observe vast numbers of new species closely allied to those he was familiar with. He built a huge reference collection which allowed him to make accurate observations of newly discovered characters in plants from other localities. This required no religious framework. I think there is something about this in "A Species Of Eternity". Anyhow, I think I'll cede you this argument: that Linneaus was motivated by religious beliefs (which, ironically, most creationists wouldn't hold today. How many of them are Platonists?) > > (Actually, there is one perverse [but reputable] group calling themselves > > pattern cladists who claim evolution is entirely unnecessary to taxonomy: > > that they can discern the characters upon which taxonomy is based without > > evolutionary assumptions. Most cladists [including some friends of mine] > > think it a crock.) > > Most majority viewpoints were minority viewpoints at one time. > > Why are they perverse? (I'm not arguing - just wondering.) It is a > safe bet that Linnaeus entertained very few evolutionary assumptions. > Was his work a crock? Was he perverse? The perversity arises in deciding what a character is. Is it analogous or homologous? Philosophically, a pattern cladist (or creationist for that matter) must consider all characters analogous. If characters are homologous, then ancestors (or ancestor-like species) can be hypothesized and found, like Archaeopteryx. Creationists and pattern cladists have no philosophical reason to postulate ancestral species, and thus there is a class of predictions they cannot make. > > Creation may have been one of their assumptions: but that assumption was > > not necessary to their results. > > Just as evolution is irrelevant to a lot of research today (e.g., as > with the pattern cladists you mentioned above). What does that prove? > I didn't say that the assumption of creation was *necessary*. I said > it doesn't necessarily result in garbage research. Of course evolution is irrelevant to much research today, just as 2+2=4 is. The point is that there are many fields where the assumption of evolution is essential to the work, because of the deduction of homology. Any time we try to apply information gleaned from one organism to another, we do so because we think the organisms are homologous. If I test a drug on a rat before I test it on a human, I do so because the rat's biochemistry is largely homologous to a human's. > >>>> [DuBois] > >>>> Your argument also contains within itself the seeds of its own > >>>> destruction. Leaving creationism vague doesn't make it difficult to > >>>> challenge. You demonstrate that, by asserting the vagueness, and > >>>> attacking creationism on that ground. Your refute yourself! > >> > >>> [Huybensz] > >>> So eager to goad, you leap into erroneous arguments. Difficult is not > >>> impossible. No self refutation occurred there. Sheesh. > >> > >> "Eager to goad"? Speak for yourself, Mike. The argument was that it > >> wasn't *difficult*, not that it wasn't impossible. So eager to tell me > >> I'm eager to goad, you don't read what I wrote first... > > > I'll spell out your syllogism to you. "Mike says X is difficult." > > "Mike does X." "Therefore it was not difficult, and Mike has contradicted > > himself." But what measure of difficulty have you selected? > > You seem to have forgotten that it was Ernest Hua who said it was > difficult. My first paragragh, above, was directed to him, not you. > Learn your alphabet before you start giving me spelling lessons. The syllogism applies equally well with my name as with Ernest's. The FORM of your argument was incorrect. That means that whatever specifics you plug into that form, your conclusion is invallid. Learn your logic before you start chiding me. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh