dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/19/85)
Michael Ward has replied to my defense of the ethical charges against Ray Miller. It should be noted that my original comments were related specifically to SOR4 (The Fossil Record). No broadening of scope is stated or implied for my comments here. >>[Paul DuBois] >>As an alternative, evolution may legitimately be discussed >>as gradualistic on the strength of two simple observations. The first >>is that gradualism is, after all, the reigning orthodoxy (though its >>rule is challenged ever more vigorously in the scientific community). >>The second is that to most people, evolution means Darwin, and Darwin >>was a gradualist. Thus, to many if not most people (even educated >>ones), evolution *means* gradualism. This state of affairs will >>probably be different within a couple of decades, but I think that it >>can hardly be denied to exist at the present time. >>This being so, a portrayal (and critique) of evolution on gradualist >>grounds provides an analysis which begins where people *are*, not where >>they ought to be or where we'd like them to be. I see nothing wrong >>with this. > ........ >>But in a pamphlet >>intended for general consumption by undergraduates (who, at least for >>the time being, are more than likely gradualists if they are anything), >>there is little value in giving more attention to this phenomenon than >>observing that it exists. > [Michael Ward] > There is something wrong with this. The thing that is wrong with this > is closely related to the many requests that have been made in this > newsgroup for a statement of the creationist theory. The only > arguments I am aware of for creationism rely on the (implicit or > explicit) presumption that creationism is the only reasonable > alternative to evolution. Thus, debunking evolution is sufficient to > establish creationism. This is certainly the methodology used by Ray > Miller in his pamphlets. It is a common technique to prove that X is true by showing that not-X is false. The question is whether creation and evolution are the only alternatives. They are. There is, ultimately, no alternative to evolution but creation. If evolution did not occur here, then life was created, or it came from somewhere else. If it came from somewhere else. If it did not evolve there, it was either created or it came from somewhere else. Iterate until exhausted. One may say that there are other alternatives to DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE ON EARTH than evolution of life from non-life or creation of life (e.g., panspermia). Fine. But that doesn't really change the ultimate question. Be that as it may, one (the creationist in particular) is still faced with the need to present positive evidence for his viewpoint, for the obvious reason that evolution, even if successfully debunked, may fail to stay debunked in the light of new developments. If knowledge in the area of the study of origins were static, then indeed a disproof of evolution would be proof of creation. But such knowledge is not static. In any case, the objection that Ray did not present positive evidence is not correct. He certainly did present what he considers evidence consistent with his creation model (e.g., gaps, sudden appearance of fully-developed forms). You may not accept this as evidence, but it is not true that he has failed to present any for consideration. Also, Ray DID mention alternatives to gradualism, even if they were not discussed much. Thus he did not focus exclusively on gradualism. > Even granting, for the sake of argument (and only for that sake), that > this was a legitimate method of attack, one is still faced with the > need to debunk evolution, rather than one particular school of > evolution. Of course. > The existence of the theory of punctuated equilibrium as a respected > school of science is by itself enough to absolutely invalidate any > debunking of gradualism, or Darwinism, as a defense of creationism. Not quite. The existence of a *credible* theory of p.e. is enough. Simply multiplying alternatives to gradualism is a meaningless exercise. (I am not saying that p.e. is not credible, only that the statement above is not quite correct...) But I have never stated that an invalidation of gradualism, or anything else, is a satisfactory defense of creationism, nor, I believe, does Ray hold with that, either. It is a (necessary?) part of that defense, but does not constitute a complete formulation in any sense. However, the real response to your statement is simply that a good deal of Ray's presentation is not specific to gradualism. > The presence of acceptable alternatives requires one to actually > present evidence that, by itself, supports one's claim. The debunking > method must debunk all possible (or at least credible) theories of > evolution, not just gradualism. Quite so. But my purpose was to examine the charges against Ray Miller, not to present evidence. As you well know, I have never addressed myself to that. > In the face of this, for someone to present a debunking of gradualism > as a defense of creationism, merely because his audience is unaware of > the acceptable alternatives, creates a severe ethical problem. He is > likely to win a few debaters points, but at the risk of subjecting > himself to charges of chicanery. I don't agree with this at all. (i) Ray did present what he considers to be positive evidence. Thus he is not simply trying to discredit evolution because he supports his own side. Whether one agrees that his evidence is *good* evidence or not, is irrelevant, I think, because your complaint is with his method, and his method is not purely discreditation. (ii) Ray doesn't attack gradualism only. Much of his presentation is not specific to that particular formulation of evolution. (iii) Ray's presentation *does*, however, give greatest *emphasis* to gradualism. But, as I have said, this is entirely appropriate. Gradualism holds sway, and one attacks the citadel, not the outhouse. Should he focus on, e.g., Gorczynski and Steele, instead? That would be foolish. > Perhaps the most significant difference between the scientific forum > and the public forum that creationists choose is that in the > scientific forum, winning one debate is not likely to gain you much. And it will do so in the public forum? I'm skeptical. > Scientists in any field are very likely to be aware of the issues that > are raging in that field, and will remember what a proponant of an idea > says from one day to the next. In the fields of science, people are > very sensitive to dishonest practices, and tend to get ugly when they > see evidence of such practices. Whereas in the public forum people are insensitive to dishonesty. No, I don't think you mean *that*. You mean that the public will not be informed enough to even know that there is dishonestly going on, and so are likely to be deceived. Correct? Well, WHOSE FAULT IS IT THAT THEY DON'T KNOW ABOUT ALTERNATIVE THEORIES?? What do you see in the textbooks? Darwin! Aren't you saying, in effect, that if the creationist wishes to attack evolution, he must not only "debunk" gradualism, he must also educate the general public as to all the alternative theories, and then debunk them? It seems to me that the responsibility for dissemination of information relating to alternative theories of evolution rests squarely on the shoulders of the evolutionist. Don't you agree? I DO NOT accept the responsibility to educate the public about YOUR theories. (As an illustration of the poor job evolutionists do of transmitting information about their work, consider that the first place I learned of punctuated equilibrium was in an ICR publication! One might hypothesize that I only read creationist literature, but I don't. I read very little of it, actually.) -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (04/21/85)
Paul DuBois writes: > > It is a common technique to prove that X is true by showing that not-X is > false. The question is whether creation and evolution are the only > alternatives. They are. There is, ultimately, no alternative to > evolution but creation. If evolution did not occur here, then life was > created, or it came from somewhere else. If it came from somewhere > else. If it did not evolve there, it was either created or it came > from somewhere else. Iterate until exhausted. > > One may say that there are other alternatives to DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE > ON EARTH than evolution of life from non-life or creation of life > (e.g., panspermia). Fine. But that doesn't really change the > ultimate question. > These comments raise some very serious issues. First there is the blatant confusion on the meaning of evolution. EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. The debating technique you refer to is extensively used by creationists here, and merits further comment. By definition, creation is not in the realm of science, and cannot claim to be the only alternative, since such a claim implies that no others can be found, ever. There is no justification for claiming that creation is the sole alternative to evolution. The argument you use is totally absurd, for by using your own iteration scheme, one may ask where did the thing doing the act of creation come from etc. Scientific theories are not proven by the act of disproving others. They can't ever be, since they are always subject to revision and consequently are only held tentatively. What changes is the degree of reliability assigned to them. To say "There is, ultimately, no alternative to evolution but creation" betrays your severe lack of understanding of science. Having an alternative pet theory to a scientific one does not make it a scienific theory. I would appreciate an explicit, to the point, clarification of your position on each of the above paragraphs. Thanks in advance. Padraig Houlahan.
heller@shell.UUCP (Don Heller) (04/21/85)
The claim was made that evolution and creation are the only two models, and that if one is refuted then the other is proved. Well, there are indeed other alternatives. One which is often neglected (for good reason in most contexts) is the "don't care" model. This is appropriate when trying to analyze changes in the earth or in life since some point in the past. The advantage is that one does not waste time trying to explain earlier events. We simply "don't care" what happened before the arbitrary time. Sort of like US foreign policy :-) Now, if one wants to iterate on the "don't care" model, pick a time in the past, and explain what has happened since. Now pick an earlier time, and repeat. Will your resulting theory be evolution or creation? Will you be able to make any statement about what happened before your cutoff date? This is, of course, an intellectually unsatisfying process, but we've made a lot of money using it and it looks a lot more like evolution than creation. Don Heller Shell Development Company Houston, Texas
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (04/21/85)
> (As an illustration of the poor job evolutionists do of transmitting > information about their work, consider that the first place I learned > of punctuated equilibrium was in an ICR publication! One might > hypothesize that I only read creationist literature, but I don't. I > read very little of it, actually.) I, too, first heard of punctuated equilibrium from a creatonist - in this newsgroup, as a matter of fact. But all I needed was the name "Gould", and I have found little difficulty in continuing my education. I have spoken to several high school students about this subject lately, and none of them have heard of Steven Gould or punctuated equilibrium or creationism. The task of educating our citizens does not lie with the creationists or the scientists. It lies with the school systems. Unfortunately. Scientists tend to do a very good job of transmiting information about their work to other scientists. They tend to do a poor job of transmiting this information to the public. This is usually left to news reporters and textbook writers. Reporters never seem to understand, whatever it is they are writing about. Textbook writers seem to be at least twenty years behind whatever field they are writing about.. What all this means is that for a discussion to be meaningful, a great deal of education is needed on both sides. Both sides should be engaging in this education. A good place to start is right here. How about it - where's that exposition of the theories of creation that we've been waiting for?
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (04/22/85)
[.................] >> (As an illustration of the poor job evolutionists do of transmitting >> information about their work, consider that the first place I learned >> of punctuated equilibrium was in an ICR publication! One might >> hypothesize that I only read creationist literature, but I don't. I >> read very little of it, actually.) > >I, too, first heard of punctuated equilibrium from a creatonist - >in this newsgroup, as a matter of fact. But all I needed was >the name "Gould", and I have found little difficulty in continuing >my education. I have spoken to several high school students >about this subject lately, and none of them have heard of Steven >Gould or punctuated equilibrium or creationism. The task of >educating our citizens does not lie with the creationists or >the scientists. It lies with the school systems. Unfortunately. > And, unfortunately, the creationist ravings have had the effect of crippling what little education on these subjects that there is. Rather than attempt the ridiculous posture of 'equal time' between evolution and 'magic', most textbook publishers simply remove what information is in the textbooks with regards to evolution. >Scientists tend to do a very good job of transmiting information >about their work to other scientists. They tend to do a poor >job of transmiting this information to the public. This is usually >left to news reporters and textbook writers. Reporters never >seem to understand, whatever it is they are writing about. Textbook >writers seem to be at least twenty years behind whatever field >they are writing about.. > >What all this means is that for a discussion to be meaningful, >a great deal of education is needed on both sides. >Both sides should be engaging in this education. A good place >to start is right here. How about it - where's that exposition >of the theories of creation that we've been waiting for? > Don't hold your breath. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/23/85)
In article <945@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > It seems to me that the responsibility for dissemination of > information relating to alternative theories of evolution rests > squarely on the shoulders of the evolutionist. Don't you agree? > > (As an illustration of the poor job evolutionists do of transmitting > information about their work, consider that the first place I learned > of punctuated equilibrium was in an ICR publication! ....) As a matter of fact, evolutionary biologists have not been commanded by god to go out and spread evolutionary biology to the world. Most professional biologists are squirrelled away in universities. If biologists are scurrilously proselytizing for secular humanism as many creationists think they are, creationists have little to worry about. The real problem is that of bringing proper educational materials to teachers. (Scientist doesn't necessarily equal teacher, as all too many college students learn.) The textbook industry is quite slow to absorb new ideas in science. Partly because what sells textbooks is who they appeal to and who they don't offend. It's quite likely that many children will not learn about punctuated equilibrium because of the efforts of people like the Gablers in Texas. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (04/23/85)
[.................] >Aren't you saying, in effect, that if the creationist wishes to attack >evolution, he must not only "debunk" gradualism, he must also educate >the general public as to all the alternative theories, and then debunk >them? It seems to me that the responsibility for dissemination of >information relating to alternative theories of evolution rests >squarely on the shoulders of the evolutionist. Don't you agree? I DO >NOT accept the responsibility to educate the public about YOUR >theories. > No, if the creationist wishes to attack evolution, he must educate the scientific community as to his 'better' alternative theory. Science in general dosen't give a flying *** what the general public thinks. Scientists tell the general public what the SCIENTISTS think. They do not ask the non-scientist general public what it thinks about theories (you don't ask a non-expert for expert testimony). Science DOES NOT accept the responsibility to educate the public about alternative theories. Creationists are trying to sell their view to the public, as the scientists won't buy it. Scientists don't feel it neccessary to confuse the public by presenting conflicting theories for the public to decide the validity of. Scientists decide among themselves what they think is valid, and only dissmeinate information regarding what they think that is. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
cjh@petsd.UUCP (Chris Henrich) (04/26/85)
[] Keith Doyle has (perhaps inadvertently) mentioned an attitude and practice of some scientists, which accounts for much of the adverse reaction of the creationists. > ... > Science in general dosen't give a flying *** what the general public > thinks. Scientists tell the general public what the SCIENTISTS think. > ... > Scientists decide among themselves > what they think is valid, and only dissmeinate information regarding > what they think that is. > ... Doubtless the intention of the scientific spokesmen being described is simply to stick up for their convictions. I think, however, that it comes across as arrogance. In religious contexts, the word is "triumphalism." It is misleading to represent a scientific theory, even a very well supported one, as a perfectly finished, tidy edifice that is (by divine mandate?) preserved from all attack - a stately temple of the intellect. In fact, scientific activity is more like a flea market than a stately temple. It is always a-buildin', never finished. There are always arguments, and there always have been. Any theory worth while is the object of vigorous controversy, and it changes over the years as a result. Only in a mediocre high-school textbook does it seem otherwise. I can sympathise with the harried teacher, trying to persuade a roomful of teenagers that some theory about old bones is worth learning. I'd probably attempt to speak with the authority of Mayr and Simpson myself. But people are not fooled for long; young people in particular are sensitive to when some grownup is feeding them bull sugar. In a free country they are right to resent it. It seems to me that many of the creationist postings on this news-group are in fact criticisms of a simplistic view of evolutionary theory. Sometimes they sound as if they want biology to be simplistic, and condemn it because it isn't ... I *hope* this is a mis-perception of what the critics really mean. I hope they really want to get past the straw men, the caricatures, and the bumper-sticker slogans. If so, then the creationists are performing a constructive service. Regards, Chris -- Full-Name: Christopher J. Henrich UUCP: ..!(cornell | ariel | ukc | houxz)!vax135!petsd!cjh US Mail: MS 313; Perkin-Elmer; 106 Apple St; Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 Phone: (201) 758-7288
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/28/85)
> [Christopher J. Henrich] > It seems to me that many of the creationist postings > on this news-group are in fact criticisms of a simplistic view > of evolutionary theory. Sometimes they sound as if they want > biology to be simplistic, and condemn it because it isn't ... > I *hope* this is a mis-perception of what the critics really > mean. I hope they really want to get past the straw men, the > caricatures, and the bumper-sticker slogans. If so, then the > creationists are performing a constructive service. Amen. Told you it was religious! :-) -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "There are two sides to every argument, until you take one." |