alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (05/21/84)
> Again, we are NOT talking about the "christian version of creation." > This is NOT a religious discussion, but whether a certain model > SUPPORTED ONLY BY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCES should be presented. Larry, if you're telling us that creationism is a scientific theory, and nothing more, then I'm calling you a liar. I just don't believe that you believe what you want us to believe. -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (06/04/84)
Larry, I may have been out of line calling you a liar. I should give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you are a completely sincere fool. -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
palmer@uw-june (David Palmer) (06/04/84)
Alan Driscoll: > [quoting me] > > Again, we are NOT talking about the "christian version of creation." > > This is NOT a religious discussion, but whether a certain model > > SUPPORTED ONLY BY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCES should be presented. > > Larry, if you're telling us that creationism is a scientific > theory, and nothing more, then I'm calling you a liar. I just > don't believe that you believe what you want us to believe. Pardon my mistake - I assumed Netters could read. SCIENTIFIC creationism *is* a SCIENTIFIC model. The favorite ploy of {press,courts,ACLU,etc.} is to deliberately confuse SCIENTIFIC creation with BIBLICAL creation. Whether the conclusion is the same is not material; *how* the conclusion is arrived at *is* material. (E.g., the book of Ubizmo says 2+2=4; should we then discard arithmetic from schools?) BTW, anyone telling me that evolutionism "is a scientific theory, and nothing more," is a liar. -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {decvax,ihnp4,allegra,ucbvax}!{decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA
palmer@uw-june (David Palmer) (06/04/84)
<The good that comes from blindness
and the evil that comes from sight
Are true and rightful reasons
to trust in The Lord's Might
-Anon.>
Unfortunately, while trying to post this article, I accidently
reposted Larry Bickford's article (to which this is a reply). I
vehemently reject the statements and conclusions accidentally released
under my name. Those responsible will be asked to leave the University
:-)
Larry Bickford:
> Alan Driscoll:
> > [quoting me]
> > > Again, we are NOT talking about the "christian version of creation."
> > > This is NOT a religious discussion, but whether a certain model
> > > SUPPORTED ONLY BY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCES should be presented.
> >
> > Larry, if you're telling us that creationism is a scientific
> > theory, and nothing more, then I'm calling you a liar. I just
> > don't believe that you believe what you want us to believe.
> Pardon my mistake - I assumed Netters could read. SCIENTIFIC
> creationism *is* a SCIENTIFIC model. The favorite ploy of
> {press,courts,ACLU,etc.} is to deliberately confuse SCIENTIFIC creation
> with BIBLICAL creation. Whether the conclusion is the same is not
> material; *how* the conclusion is arrived at *is* material. (E.g., the
> book of Ubizmo says 2+2=4; should we then discard arithmetic from
> schools?)
SCIENTIFIC creationism differs in NO respect from BIBLICAL creationism,
so I hope you can understand our confusion. (Am I wrong, or do those
who advocate SCIENTIFIC creationism think that the BIBLE got things
wrong?) It *is* a SCIENTIFIC model, just like flat-earth, phlogistine,
geocentrism, aether (or ether, if you study more recent models :-).
The only problem is that there is virtually no evidence for the simple
model, outside of the BIBLE. For the more complicated model, there is
no conceivable evidence against it (far-away stars? the speed of light
is changing; Tree rings? God made them like that to give man a sense
of history (or The Lying Devil made them to tempt man into the wicked
ways of evolution) Dinosaurs? The slow moving Allosaurs got trapped by
the flood, while the swiftly moving three-toed sloth managed to get
from South America to Noah's ark before the rains came.)
If there were people who believed in SCIENTIFIC creationism on purely
SCIENTIFIC grounds, then maybe we would want SCIENTIFIC creationism in
our schools, along with whatever else those people believed in.
(Little green men from Mars, palmistry, cattle mutilations,
Veliokovsky, von Daniken and the Flat Earth, the Divinity of Reverend
Moon, the Rapture which came in 1982 (they're just finishing up the
paperwork now, trust me, the world has already ended))
> BTW, anyone telling me that evolutionism "is a scientific theory, and
> nothing more," is a liar.
I'm not saying that evolution(ism) "is a scientific theory, and nothing
more," I'm saying that evolution "is a scientific theory, backed up by
an incredible amount of scientific data compiled across an extremely
large range of physical and biological sciences, and nothing more."
I won't be around to answer your flames, I'm graduating on Saturday. I
may be back next year (If CalTech is on the net), but until then,
"Absence is the best asbestos -The same Anon. who wrote my bug-line"
The Cute Signoff of David Palmer
P.S. The opinions expressed by Anon are not necessarily those of the
Author, the University of Washington, or Spiny Norman (Dinsdale?)
P.P.S So long and thanks for all the fishbill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (01/05/85)
I want to thank Greg Kuperberg and Mike Huybensz for their thoughtful
comments on my rebuttal to SOR Pamphlet #4. I had intended to comment
on the honesty issue after #5, but Greg's article prompts me to do so now.
For Science to be viable, Scientists must be absolutely honest and open in
their work. As Greg points out, Creationists by and large have been neither
honest nor open in their public communications, and indeed this is one way that
Creationism can be distinguished from science. For all their human foibles,
scientists present their findings to the open marketplace of ideas for testing,
and by and large, when their precious ideas are found wanting, they abandon
them. Not always without reluctance! Moreover, a cardinal sin to a scientist
is falsification of data. In contrast, Creationists are still pushing ideas
that were found wanting a century ago, and for which there is today absolutely
no credible evidence. Indeed, as the incident of Gish and the Bullfrog Blood
illustrates, they are not above inventing data out of whole cloth if that serves
their temporary purpose. Scientists who do this lose their jobs and
reputations. Creationists who do this are defended by their fellows. That is
because the Creationist program is not scientific, but religious.
As I pointed out in a recent article, some Creationists are beginning to
recognize these facts. According to Robert Schadewald, Richard Elmendorf (who
is also a Geocentrist) and Russell Arndts have abandoned the "creationism is
science" apologetic, and according to Stan Weinberg, Robert Kofahl has done the
same and is now pushing for a "civil rights" strategy. At the recent
Bible-Science conference, Elmendorf stated explicitly that the "creationism is
science" strategy isn't fooling anyone: Everyone knows that Creationism isn't
science, and Creationists are going to have to resort to other tactics to get
their way.
As for Ray Miller, it is not clear to me at this point whether he is dishonest
or merely incompetent to discuss these issues. The fact that he has misquoted
and quoted out of context a number of scientists is not in itself proof of
dishonesty. It may well be that he is merely repeating the misquotations
of others, and has not read the originals. In fact, I am inclined to believe
that this is probably true, since many of his quotations are found in the
Creationist literature pretty much as he gave them . Counting against him
is the fact that in his articles he has repeated many bogus arguments that
had previously been thoroughly rebutted in this newsgroup, a fact of which
he must surely been aware. But still, it is possible that he missed some of
them (I understand that he spent his summer looking for human tracks among
dinosaur tracks), or that he may simply not have understood the rebuttals.
Ray is soon to arrive at his moment of truth, as it were. The articles that
people have written here in rebuttal to his pamphlets have destroyed the
underpinnings of his arguments so completely, in my opinion, that he
will not, if he is honest, be able to submit them for publication. Remember,
his intended audience is College-level students. For him to publish
his pamphlets in anything remotely resembling their present form
would be an act of the gravest irresponsibility. So we will be able to
see the kind of stuff that Ray is made of. I personally hope that he will
see the error of his ways and abandon this ill-conceived project; if he
does not, then he will stand before the readers of this interest group
convicted by his own actions.
--
"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)pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (01/10/85)
Bill Jefferys has expounded well on the honesty that ought to characterize science. That standard of honesty ought to be striven for by creationists as well as evolutionists. I think, however, that it is a bit unfair to characterise creationists exclusively as having grave problems in this area. The problem of dishonesty, fraud and deceit is at a very unacceptable level in all of science--as William Broad and Nicholas Wade have pointed out in their recent book "Betrayers of the Truth". Creationist err and dishonesty is trumpeted for all the world to see by evolutionists whose aspiration to honesty and objectivity often seems to be matched by a basic disdain for a contradicting cosmology with differing implications. I think there are many evolutionists who just don't want creationism to be seen as having the least degree of plausibility and I think the reasons often go to a deeper, personal level than just a concern for scientific integrity in itself. As Broad and Wade have shown, the errs of *accepted* science easily go unnoticed for long periods of time. The point I want to make here is that the careful scrutiny applied to creationist claims by scientists does not internally characterize science as a whole. I believe creationism is treated with special scrutiny because of an inherent philosophical bias against it. Such extravigant effort seems a bit out of place in the relatively inconsequential area of origins, when falsification of data in, say, cancer research can cost many lives with treatments that don't work. Worse than the deceit itself is the fact the the review system is inadaquate and allows such fraud to go undetected for long periods of time and when it is found, knowledge of it is actively suppressed to avoid betraying the trust of the public (yes, such considerations do enter in). It is fine to point out the errors of creationism. Creationists should be all the better for it. But by doing so the opponents of creationism should not give the impression that their own back yard is clean. By the way... I am Paul Dubuc. Please don't attribute these statments to Paul Dubois. He's got enough to handle already. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (01/16/85)
[]
Your point seems to be that the worst of what goes on in the
scientific community is no more honest or scientifically sound
than what passes for creation science. I think this point is
slightly exagerated in the quoted book, but basically right.
What, if anything, does this prove? I am willing to agree tat
the best of creationist writings are no worse than the worst of
what passes for orthodox science. Is that your point?
WARNING**********************************************************
The above will not be the official opinion of the University of Texas
until such time as it can be reliably ascertained by three independent
witnesses that hell has frozen over to a depth of at least 10 meters.
*****************************************************************
"Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac
Borrow money from him." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
Department of Astronomy
University of Texas
Austin, Texas 78712pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (01/21/85)
>Ethan Vishnaiac: >Your point seems to be that the worst of what goes on in the >scientific community is no more honest or scientifically sound >than what passes for creation science. I think this point is >slightly exagerated in the quoted book, but basically right. >What, if anything, does this prove? I am willing to agree tat >the best of creationist writings are no worse than the worst of >what passes for orthodox science. Is that your point? No. My point is that orthodox science uses lower standards of honesty to check its own work than it does that of creationists. I know that may scientists have very high personal standards in this regard. I'm not trying to denigrate that. I'm talking about the way orthodox science's supposedly "self policing" nature. I make no judgements as to what the "worst" of science or the "best" of creationism is. You just did though. It seems to me that you interpret any serious problems existing in the scientific community as being the "worst" of science--as if it were beside the point. Anything that is wrong with "orthodox" science can be thrown in the worst-of-science bucket so as not to impugn science's reputation. Creationism's flaws, however, are assumed (by you) to be part of the "best" of creationism. On what basis? Maybe you know what the "best" of creationism is and the "worst" of science and maybe you have objective definitions of "best" and "worst" so as to make a meaningful comparison. I'm not sure I do. I don't see how you can be so sure you do, either. It's a little self serving to dismiss the the deceit that goes on in one's own camp as the "worst" while elevating that in the opponent's camp as being the "best" that they do. To assume that the book _Betrayers of the Truth_ only points out the "worst" of science seems to be an impertinent dismissal of the whole point of the book. The fact that things that bad can go on at all points out major problems in the way science works. It reflects on science as a whole. Broad and Wade's purpose was not to dig up dirt to make science look bad, but to expose some genuine and serious problems. Surely the same things going on in Creationists circles would be taken to discredit it totally. Doesn't the same standard that is imposed on creationists apply to orthodox science? The point of my article was pretty clear, I think. The standards of honesty and critical scrutiny that are exacted of creationism are not applied internally in the scientific community itself. "Orthodox" science all to often covers over its "worst" in order to avoid disrespect from the community. All the while many members of this orthodoxy insist on flying the dirty laundry of creationism from the highest flagpole. I think that, in measuring the "best" and "worst" of each camp, you are not using the same standard. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (01/22/85)
I'd like to make a contribution to this discussion. The following
is based on "Thermodynamics and Evolution", by John W Patterson, in
"Scientists Confront Creationism", Laurie R Godfrey, ed, W W Norton
and Co., New York, 1983, 99-116. Some readers may recognize this as
the same book that Bill Jefferys has used as a source several times;
I recommend it highly to people on both sides in this newsgroup
(it's out in softcover now, $7.95).
Patterson begins by discussing the contention that the use of the
second law by creationists is fallacious (though personally I'd say
that Pat Wyant has done a better job on that score), then turns his
attention to a discussion (i.e., vilification) of creationist
apologetical methods. In particular, we find that
"To a large extent, the creationist' polemics against
geologists, paleontologists, and biologists were not taken very
seriously as science by most educated persons until "entropy" -
a much more effective apologetic - was used. Shrouded in
mystique, entropy's potential for misinterpretation is well
known even to students and practitioners of thermodynamics.
Claude Shannon, the inventor of the uncertainty function in
communications engineering and the the father of information
theory, was advised by the internationally renowned
mathematician and scientist Jon Von Neumann to call his new
uncertainty function entropy for two reasons: 'In the first
place, your uncertainty function has been used in statistical
mechanics under that name, so it already has a name. In the
second place, and more important, _no one knows what entropy
really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage_'
(italics added)." (p. 113-114)
What we have here is an example of one scientist advising another to
deliberately use obscure language in order to gain an advantage.
This is clearly deceptive. What is Patterson's evaluation? He
describes it as merely a "humorous little anecdote". Thus, he
effectively empties the incident of any possible moral content. At
the same time, he condones it since there is no hint anywhere that
he takes exception to Von Neumann's suggestion. He is apparently
entirely unaware of these things, however, and proceeds to inveigh
against creationists for supposedly adopting this very tactic,
immediately after he himself neutralizes the possibility of doing
so. Patterson then notes that the anecdote was related in the
September 1971 issue of Scientific American,
"and within a short time the entropy argument against evolution
was among the creationists' favorite debate tools. Soon, D. R.
Boylan, the most prestigious engineering educator in the
leadership of the creationist movement added his testimonial:
'The second law has been particularly helpful in developing an
apologetic against abiogenesis...'" (p. 114)
The obvious implication is that creationists spotted the anecdote,
said "Aha! Here's a tactic *we* can use!", and proceeded to do so.
Note that Patterson give no direct evidence of this, but only
conveys the impression through juxtaposition. But let us look more
closely.
As already indicated, Patterson condoned the practice by failing to
take Von Neumann to task for it. Then he denounces creationists who
(supposedly) engage in it. Does he not talk out of both sides of
his mouth? One may infer the denunciation to consist of mere
rhetoric, without substance.
In addition, his implication is provably false. One need only
demonstrate references to use of entropy by creationists prior to
1971, and this is hardly difficult. One example is a book by Henry
Morris (The Twilight of Evolution, 1963). This was referenced by
Patterson himself, but evidently he did not read it very carefully
aside from using it to find a few suitably ridiculous-sounding
quotes (a charge sometimes levelled at creationists, no?).
Davidheiser (Evolution and Christian Faith, 1969) is another example
of such language prior to 1971.
Whether creationists deliberately misuse thermodynamics (I hope they
do not, though this cannot be ruled out), simply misunderstand it
(more likely), or understand it but just flat out disagree with
everyone else about the implications, it seems to me that Patterson
is guilty of exactly the same thing he attempts to show of
creationists: dishonesty.
Why do I submit this article?
I am not attempting to stanch the flow of charges of dishonesty
levelled at creationists. It is true that creationists should be
honest, and that dishonesty is a serious matter. Legitimate charges
of this *should* be brought to light. No one will dispute this, I
think. But at the same time, the writings of some (not all) anti-
creationists reach a height (or depth) that becomes simply
ludicrous, as I hope has been illustrated above. When that occurs,
the attempt to discredit creationism completely loses its
credibility, and so works against itself.
So perhaps it seems a little strange to you evolutionists, but
that's some advice from a creationist, on arguing against
creationism.
--
Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
|
"Got to start by *finding* it, have we? Not allowed to --+--
start by *looking* for it, I suppose." |
-- Puddleglum |gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (01/23/85)
> Patterson begins by discussing the contention that the use of the > second law by creationists is fallacious (though personally I'd say > that Pat Wyant has done a better job on that score), then turns his > attention to a discussion (i.e., vilification) of creationist > apologetical methods. In particular, we find that > > "To a large extent, the creationist' polemics against > geologists, paleontologists, and biologists were not taken very > seriously as science by most educated persons until "entropy" - > a much more effective apologetic - was used. Shrouded in > mystique, entropy's potential for misinterpretation is well > known even to students and practitioners of thermodynamics. > Claude Shannon, the inventor of the uncertainty function in > communications engineering and the the father of information > theory, was advised by the internationally renowned > mathematician and scientist Jon Von Neumann to call his new > uncertainty function entropy for two reasons: 'In the first > place, your uncertainty function has been used in statistical > mechanics under that name, so it already has a name. In the > second place, and more important, _no one knows what entropy > really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage_' > (italics added)." (p. 113-114) Firstly, in my article, I was not talking about "some creationists" or even "a creationist". I was talking about Mr. Alan Ray Miller himself. My posting was no guilt by association. It was a direct accusation. What John Von Neumann, Claude Shannon, or Patterson said is irrelevant. Secondly, every physicist I've talked to (that's worth his salt) knows damn well what entropy means; Von Neumann was clearly being facetious. If you're thinking of the layman, then I point out that Von Neumann couldn't care less about laymen. Stephen Jay Gould, on the other hand, does care about laymen, and I think (although I could be wrong on this count) that he is careful to explain what entropy means before using it in his essays. This invalidates most of the rest of your argument. > In addition, his implication is provably false. One need only > demonstrate references to use of entropy by creationists prior to > 1971, and this is hardly difficult. One example is a book by Henry > Morris (The Twilight of Evolution, 1963). This was referenced by > Patterson himself, but evidently he did not read it very carefully > aside from using it to find a few suitably ridiculous-sounding > quotes (a charge sometimes levelled at creationists, no?). > Davidheiser (Evolution and Christian Faith, 1969) is another example > of such language prior to 1971. This is unsubstantiated. I've read Gish's blurb on thermodynamics and I found it to be garbage. Please state the argument clearly and then we'll see if it's valid. > Why do I submit this article? To decree guilt by association, perhaps. My first guess was that you are attempting to stanch the flow of charges of dishonesty levelled at creationists, but you explicitly denied this in the next sentence, so I could be wrong. > > I am not attempting to stanch the flow of charges of dishonesty > levelled at creationists. It is true that creationists should be > honest, and that dishonesty is a serious matter. Legitimate charges > of this *should* be brought to light. No one will dispute this, I > think. But at the same time, the writings of some (not all) anti- > creationists reach a height (or depth) that becomes simply > ludicrous, as I hope has been illustrated above. When that occurs, > the attempt to discredit creationism completely loses its > credibility, and so works against itself. Since you're discussing my charges of dishonesty (and Bill Jefferys'), please look for dishonesty in our writings rather than Mr. Patterson's. > Paul DuBois --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "Nice boy, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice." - Foghorn Leghorn
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (01/23/85)
[]
I have been very busy recently and have not been following this newsgroup
particularly closely. My apologies in advance if I am covering ground
someone has already addressed.
The following is a brief response to Paul Dubois' article in which
he quotes a letter from Von Neumann to Claude Shannon. I will repeat
the quote here
'In the first
place, your uncertainty function has been used in statistical
mechanics under that name, so it already has a name. In the
second place, and more important, _no one knows what entropy
really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage_'
Now Paul goes on to accuse Patterson of hypocrisy for condemming creationists
for making mystical appeals to the 2nd law while regarding the above advice
as merely humorous. Is this reasonable?
As the quote clearly shows, the subject under discussion is what to call
a well-defined quantity. Presumably Shannon was all set to call it
Grebzorkitude instead :-). There is no question here about drawing bogus
conclusions from well known physics. It is a question of nomenclature.
The first point raised by Von Neumann is reasonable and helpful. The second
is clearly meant to be joke. In exactly what context would calling it entropy
lead to giving Shannon an advantage in a debate? and with whom? In fact,
calling it entropy gives nonspecialists some idea of what the function is
before they become well-versed in the field. Calling it Grebzorkitude would
merely add jargon to the field.
Creationists are not being accused of misusing the concept of entropy
by calling something entropy which actually is entirely different. They
stand accused by taking the usual physical concept of entropy and
misapplying it, and of drawing erroneous conclusions from the same second law
we all know and love. If they understand it, then those that attempt to
bolster their position with its use, in ways we have seen here, *are* being
dishonest. Of course, if they are merely mistaken then it is unfair to impugn
their moral characters on that account. Whether or not calling someone a liar
who is merely wrong is a good debating tactic is an interesting question, but
not relevant to merits (or lack thereof) of creationism.
*****************************************************************
This is a generic disclaimer. As such it may contain unsightly impurities.
However, these impurities are guaranteed to be purely cosmetic. They
should have no effect on the functioning of the disclaimer.
*****************************************************************
"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
Austin, Texas 78712friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (01/23/85)
In article <4639@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: > > It seems to me >that you interpret any serious problems existing in the scientific >community as being the "worst" of science--as if it were beside >the point. Anything that is wrong with "orthodox" science can >be thrown in the worst-of-science bucket so as not to impugn science's >reputation. Creationism's flaws, however, are assumed (by you) >to be part of the "best" of creationism. On what basis? Maybe >you know what the "best" of creationism is and the "worst" of science >and maybe you have objective definitions of "best" and "worst" so >as to make a meaningful comparison. I'm not sure I do. I don't >see how you can be so sure you do, either. > Actually there are some basic standards that can be applied. I have read a number of "scientific" papers by creationists, I mean supposedly professional publications, and they have been universally *poor*. They consistantly misuse analytic methods, misapply general scientific principles, use faulty logic, and even use questionable data. I have seen *very* few other scientific papers as bad as the typical creationist's paper, and those have been in disreputable journals. Thus it appears that scintific work done by creationists is generally of far lower quality than is usual in the scientific community. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|burdvax|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (01/25/85)
In article <4639@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: > ... The point of my article was pretty clear, I think. The standards > of honesty and critical scrutiny that are exacted of creationism > are not applied internally in the scientific community itself. > "Orthodox" science all to often covers over its "worst" in order to > avoid disrespect from the community. All the while many members of > this orthodoxy insist on flying the dirty laundry of creationism > from the highest flagpole. I think that, in measuring the "best" > and "worst" of each camp, you are not using the same standard. I am reminded of the accusation (from The Odd Couple) "He HAS no white things." (Implying his underwear is gray at best.... :-) If you think standards of honesty and critical scrutiny are not applied by scientists to eachother, I invite you to read the letters sections of journals such as Scientific American, Nature, Science, and a host of others. The scrutiny can be so intense as to be flamelike. Or read "Not In Our Genes", an attempt by several Harvard scientists to rebut some of the claims of sociobiologists. > I make no judgements as to what the "worst" of science or the > "best" of creationism is. Oh, but please do. I really want to see what the best of creationism is. Everything I've seen is little better than the pamphlets whatshisname is putting out. There is a qualitative difference involved: creationist publications seem (to me) always to depend heavily upon fallacies of argument, while scientific works seldom do. Perhaps that is sufficient to explain the differences in criticism you perceive. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP (01/28/85)
>I have read a number of "scientific" papers by creationists, I mean >supposedly professional publications, and they have been universally *poor*. >They consistantly misuse analytic methods, misapply general scientific >principles, use faulty logic, and even use questionable data. >Sarima (Stanley Friesen) Oh? Zat right? Perhaps you would like to cite some for us? Since most evolu- tionists claim that creationists never publish in "professional publications" & you claim to have read "a number" (which I assume is nonzero) of "universally *poor*" papers, perhaps you would like to back up your claims with some ref- erences? In reality, we have yet another example of evolutionists arguing both sides of the fence, i.e., that creationists *do not* publish outside of crea- tionist journals, and that creationists *do* publish outside of creationist journals (but their papers are poor). You should get together with the other evolutionists on the net and develop a consistant strategy. A. Ray Miller Univ Illinois
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (01/29/85)
In article <32500021@uiucdcsb.UUCP> miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP writes: > >Oh? Zat right? Perhaps you would like to cite some for us? Since most evolu- >tionists claim that creationists never publish in "professional publications" & >you claim to have read "a number" (which I assume is nonzero) of "universally >*poor*" papers, perhaps you would like to back up your claims with some ref- >erences? In reality, we have yet another example of evolutionists arguing both >sides of the fence, i.e., that creationists *do not* publish outside of crea- >tionist journals, and that creationists *do* publish outside of creationist >journals (but their papers are poor). You should get together with the other >evolutionists on the net and develop a consistant strategy. > >A. Ray Miller >Univ Illinois I'll admit I did not find the material in journals, since no reputable jornal would accept a creationist's paper. The publications were books written by creationist scientists. The one I remember the best is a book which attempted to re-analyze the ecology of the wooly mammoth. This book was *full* of misuses of accepted biological principles, in much the same vein as the frequent misuse of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics by creationists. The misused principles include such things as "Otherwise similar organisms tend to have shorter limbs, and other extremities in colder climates". The author actually attempted to apply this to a comparison between totally different animals, perhaps a desert fox and an elephant, violating the first clause of the principle. There are several such principles known in biology relating variation in anatomy to environment, in similar organisms. The book in question misused *all* of them, in the same way, by making comparisons between non-similar animals. For instance he compared the density of the wooly mammoth's fur to that of *small* arctic mammals(such as the arctic hare), completely ignoring the square-cube law and its effect on heat retention! The premise of the book was that since the creationists' paradigm does not admit the existance of an ice age, the wooly mammoth could not have been arctic adapted in the subarctic locations where it has been found. It was an attempt at serious scientific discussion, not a pamphlet or tract. It was an utter failure, and in fact cannot be taken seriously. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or quad1!psivax!friesen
brian@digi-g.UUCP (Brian Westley) (02/01/85)
In article <32500021@uiucdcsb.UUCP> miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP writes: >>I have read a number of "scientific" papers by creationists, I mean >>supposedly professional publications, and they have been universally *poor*. >>They consistantly misuse analytic methods, misapply general scientific >>principles, use faulty logic, and even use questionable data. >>Sarima (Stanley Friesen) > >Oh? Zat right? Perhaps you would like to cite some for us? Well, the net.origins discussion hardly qualifies as "scientific", but a few weeks ago someone (name forgotten) made a claim that all organic life was made up of dextrorotatory (D) molecules (or was it levorotatory (L)?), while randomly cooked-up goop was about half of each. This argument re- surfaced a little later. At both times, I submitted an explaination that was totally WRONG! (totally wrong explaination omitted). The actual explaination is much simpler; the original assertion is false. Look up L-dopa (the levorotatory form of dopa, either sythesized or extracted from broad beans) and dextrose (the dextrorotatory form of glucose, found all over the place). Would the original claimant like to back up this bogus argument, or shall we hear no more about it? -- Merlyn Leroy "Quote funny nose"
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (02/03/85)
[From Mike Huybensz:] }If you think standards of honesty and critical scrutiny are not applied }by scientists to eachother, I invite you to read the letters sections of }journals such as Scientific American, Nature, Science, and a host of }others. The scrutiny can be so intense as to be flamelike. Or read }"Not In Our Genes", an attempt by several Harvard scientists to rebut }some of the claims of sociobiologists. Sure. I'll do that if you will read _Betrayers of the Truth_. (Oh, I forgot you're one who doesn't have to read an argument to know it's unfounded). Letters to journals hardly constitute scientific review. In paticular they don't do much to expose things like faked data. A good scientific review process involves scrutiny of work by one's peers before anything is even published. Do you have any idea how many scientific journals there are published today? The British Medical Journal noted that there are at least 8,000 in medicine alone. Do you think they're all covered by the review process? 90 percent of all the scientists that ever lived are alive today. Do you think all their work gets checked? Do yourself a favor and read the book, Mike. }> I make no judgements as to what the "worst" of science or the }> "best" of creationism is. } }Oh, but please do. I really want to see what the best of creationism is. }Everything I've seen is little better than the pamphlets whatshisname is }putting out. There is a qualitative difference involved: creationist }publications seem (to me) always to depend heavily upon fallacies of }argument, while scientific works seldom do. Perhaps that is sufficient }to explain the differences in criticism you perceive. Your condesending attitude goes a long way toward the explanation, I think. Why don't you give us your definition of what "best" and "worst" mean? Some things that seem one way to you seem different to me. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (02/07/85)
In article <4724@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: > [From Mike Huybensz:] > }If you think standards of honesty and critical scrutiny are not applied > }by scientists to eachother, I invite you to read the letters sections of > }journals such as Scientific American, Nature, Science, and a host of > }others. The scrutiny can be so intense as to be flamelike. Or read > }"Not In Our Genes", an attempt by several Harvard scientists to rebut > }some of the claims of sociobiologists. > > Sure. I'll do that if you will read _Betrayers of the Truth_. (Oh, I forgot > you're one who doesn't have to read an argument to know it's unfounded). I'll check out _Betrayers of the truth_. But I'd like an apology for that last sentence (mail will do.) It is at best a misquotation. I said that I need not read all the details of an argument once I had spotted fundamental fallacies. Your bible has a relevant reference to houses built on sand that applies equally well to arguments built on fallacies. > Letters to journals hardly constitute scientific review. In paticular they > don't do much to expose things like faked data. A good scientific review > process involves scrutiny of work by one's peers before anything is even > published. Do you have any idea how many scientific journals there are > published today? The British Medical Journal noted that there are at least > 8,000 in medicine alone. Do you think they're all covered by the review > process? 90 percent of all the scientists that ever lived are alive today. > Do you think all their work gets checked? Do yourself a favor and read the > book, Mike. You're correct that not all science receives appropriate scrutiny. This is partly because there is no monolithic scientific bureaucracy that decides what is good or bad science. Anyone can publish his own work, if only by creating his own journal. And much the same is true of religion. BUT. Some science is extremely well criticized and reviewed. For example, most new ideas in evolutionary theory. Which is (surprise!) what we're discussing. > }> I make no judgements as to what the "worst" of science or the > }> "best" of creationism is. > }Oh, but please do. I really want to see what the best of creationism is. > }Everything I've seen is little better than the pamphlets whatshisname is > }putting out. There is a qualitative difference involved: creationist > }publications seem (to me) always to depend heavily upon fallacies of > }argument, while scientific works seldom do. Perhaps that is sufficient > }to explain the differences in criticism you perceive. > Your condesending attitude goes a long way toward the explanation, I think. > Why don't you give us your definition of what "best" and "worst" mean? > Some things that seem one way to you seem different to me. Why don't you try to change the subject and worm out of trying to show us what YOU think creationism is at its best? I invite anyone else to show what they think creationism is at its best also. And would it be too much for me to ask that you provide a "positive" example? You know, not something that merely attacks evolution, but something that explains natural phenomena in terms of general principles of creationism. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dinsdale Piranha) (02/07/85)
> Letters to journals hardly constitute scientific review. In paticular they > don't do much to expose things like faked data. A good scientific review > process involves scrutiny of work by one's peers before anything is even > published. [PAUL DUBUC] I wonder how much work Paul (and others like him) have done in examining whether or not HIS sources (e.g., very old books) contain "faked data", or made-up stories, or propaganda, or ... Or is that not necessary? -- BRIAN: "You're all different!" CROWD: "YES, WE'RE ALL DIFFERENT!" Rich Rosen MAN: "I'm not ... " {ihnp4 | harpo}!pyuxd!rlr
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (02/21/85)
Two responses to my "Honesty" article: > [Ethan Vishniac] > The following is a brief response to Paul Dubois' article in which > he quotes a letter from Von Neumann to Claude Shannon. I will repeat > the quote here > 'In the first > place, your uncertainty function has been used in statistical > mechanics under that name, so it already has a name. In the > second place, and more important, _no one knows what entropy > really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage_' > Now Paul goes on to accuse Patterson of hypocrisy for condemming creationists > for making mystical appeals to the 2nd law while regarding the above advice > as merely humorous. Is this reasonable? > As the quote clearly shows, the subject under discussion is what to call > a well-defined quantity. Presumably Shannon was all set to call it > Grebzorkitude instead :-). There is no question here about drawing bogus > conclusions from well known physics. It is a question of nomenclature. > The first point raised by Von Neumann is reasonable and helpful. The second > is clearly meant to be joke. In exactly what context would calling it entropy > lead to giving Shannon an advantage in a debate? and with whom? In fact, > calling it entropy gives nonspecialists some idea of what the function is > before they become well-versed in the field. Calling it Grebzorkitude would > merely add jargon to the field. Before going on, I would like to interject that I agree wholeheartedly with Ethan's remarks regarding Von Neumann's first suggestion. > [Greg Kuperberg] > Firstly, in my article, I was not talking about "some creationists" or > even "a creationist". I was talking about Mr. Alan Ray Miller himself. > My posting was no guilt by association. It was a direct accusation. What > John Von Neumann, Claude Shannon, or Patterson said is irrelevant. > Secondly, every physicist I've talked to (that's worth his salt) knows damn > well what entropy means; Von Neumann was clearly being facetious. If > you're thinking of the layman, then I point out that Von Neumann couldn't > care less about laymen. Stephen Jay Gould, on the other hand, does care > about laymen, and I think (although I could be wrong on this count) that he > is careful to explain what entropy means before using it in his essays. > This invalidates most of the rest of your argument. I was concerned in my article neither to excuse creationist mystical appeals to the second law, nor to discuss Greg's charges of dishonesty against Ray, so I would say that the intent of my article has been misperceived. My points were two: (i) Patterson accepted a dishonest tactic when not practiced by creationists. (ii) Patterson attempted to trace creationist misuse of the second law to the VN/S anecdote. Regarding the first of these points, Von Neumann's second suggestion was seen as a joke by both Ethan ("clearly meant to be a joke") and Greg ("clearly ... facetious"), because entropy is a clearly understood concept ("well-known physics", "every physicist I've talked to (that's worth his salt) knows ... what entropy is"). I can see that I may grant one or the other of Greg and Ethan's points, but not both. If on the one hand entropy is so crystal clear and unambiguous, the joke becomes very dull indeed, something on the order of "no one knows what water really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage". So it's no joke. On the other hand, if the suggestion was a joke, it is only funny if entropy *is* susceptible to misinterpretation. So then entropy cannot be as unambiguous as you seem to say. Patterson himself does not seem to share your estimate as to the status of entropy, taking pains as he does to point this out, particularly as he does so in the context of talking about "educated persons": > [Patterson] > Shrouded in mystique, entropy's potential for misinterpretation is well > known even to students and practitioners of thermodynamics. So which is it? It can't be both. My second point (that Patterson was clearly in error in tracing creationist use of the second law to this anecdote, or even to this time period) remains the same: >> [DuBois] >> In addition, his implication is provably false. One need only >> demonstrate references to use of entropy by creationists prior to >> 1971, and this is hardly difficult. One example is a book by Henry >> Morris (The Twilight of Evolution, 1963). This was referenced by >> Patterson himself, but evidently he did not read it very carefully >> aside from using it to find a few suitably ridiculous-sounding >> quotes (a charge sometimes levelled at creationists, no?). >> Davidheiser (Evolution and Christian Faith, 1969) is another example >> of such language prior to 1971. > [Greg] > This is unsubstantiated. I've read Gish's blurb on thermodynamics and I > found it to be garbage. Please state the argument clearly and then we'll > see if it's valid. Gish? I never mentioned Gish. Why do you? Besides, the point was not to assert that creationists use the second law correctly, but that Patterson didn't know what he was talking about. My argument had nothing to do with the meaning of the second law, but rather whether creationists have done what Patterson implies. They did not, and this can be (i.e., was) demonstrated. Creationists didn't just pick up and twist the concept of entropy in 1971 as a result of seeing the Von Neumann/Shannon anecdote. They used it before that. Perhaps the significance they attach to it is incorrect; the implication that they got the idea of using it in the way they do from the VN/S anecdote is certainly false. Patterson ought to have known that, as I said, because one of the books that refutes his point is in his *own* reference list. This is scholarship as poor as that often said to characterize creationists. Think about it. >> [DuBois] >> Why do I submit this article? > [Greg] > To decree guilt by association, perhaps. My first guess was that you are > attempting to stanch the flow of charges of dishonesty levelled at > creationists, but you explicitly denied this in the next sentence, so I > could be wrong. > ... > Since you're discussing my charges of dishonesty (and Bill Jefferys'), > please look for dishonesty in our writings rather than Mr. Patterson's. I was not discussing your charges of dishonesty (but see below). I wish to repeat that I am not trying to excuse any creationist who chooses to be dishonest (and remember that I did not deny the possibility). I wish to repeat that non-creationists (e.g., Patterson) sometimes engage in what we might call less-than-commendable means to express their point. Remember: I have not stated that *all* non- creationists do so; I explicitly stated otherwise. I did *not* state that dishonesty is allowable for creationists; I explicitly stated otherwise. But I certainly am not going to say that dishonesty is allowable for anyone else, either. Patterson's statements seem to me *at a minimum* highly questionable. I don't want to call him a liar, but if he isn't (and I hope he isn't) then he didn't do much homework before committing his ideas to paper. That suggestions such as these provoke the response they do is very telling. It is as though the possibility that non- creationists might not always be immaculate in their practices in inconceivable. To me this signifies another stain on the white lab coat; one which, moreover, is considered indelicate to discuss. I won't excuse creationist dishonesty (when demonstrated), but you need not expect that non-creationist dishonesty shall be ignored. ---- On another note: I had not really intended to respond to Greg's invitation to discuss the charges of dishonesty raised against Ray Miller, but upon re-examination of the articles in question, I see that there are some points that bear discussion. Therefore, I will try to address issues that have been raised, and will do so as follows: Article 1. My own reply to SOR #4. This will be a prelude to other articles. Since it will be a creationist replying to a creationist, it will be (as you might expect) less antagonistic than those which have appeared thus far. This is not to say that I disagree with all the criticisms that have been raised. On the contrary, I think some of them have merit, and I will state that fact, and why. Article 2. Response to Greg Kuperberg's first reply to SOR4. Articles 3-6. Response to Bill Jefferys' reply to SOR4. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | --+-- "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but | the honor of kings is to search out a matter" | Proverbs 25:2
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (02/26/85)
Paul writes > My points were two: > > (i) Patterson accepted a dishonest tactic when not practiced by > creationists. > (ii) Patterson attempted to trace creationist misuse of the second > law to the VN/S anecdote. Perhaps I should make my point clear. I care about creationism as a public issue. (I phrase it that way deliberately). I am irritated by the casual abuse of the second law that takes place in this news group. I do not care about the history of creationism. Presumably anyone who writes a book about it should. However, bad historical research on one person's part does not excuse dishonest and/or ignorant discussion of physics by someone else. I do not think that Patterson's anecdote reveals any dishonesty by the people in question. Entropy is a subtle and complicated topic. So is number theory. This doesn't mean that absurd statements regarding thermodynamics or integer addition are excusable on that account. "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 Austin, Texas 78712 *Anyone who wants to claim these opinions is welcome to them*