ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (03/16/85)
[] >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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307