lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (09/08/84)
[My ancestors were human - sorry about yours]
To hopefully stimulate *scientific* thinking and reduce some of the
knee-jerk followups I got, I offer this excerpt from Paul Little's _Know
Why You Believe_ (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books 1967) pp 109-113, the bulk
being a quote from G.A.Kerkut _Implications of Evolution_, International
Series of Monographs of Pure and Applied Biology, Vol.4 p3. Pergamon
Press 1960. (This was two years before _The Genesis Flood_ started the
creation-science ball rolling.) Only editing was changing Little's
"Italics mine" to "Emphasis P.L."
After discussing how pathetically theology students at Cambridge, in a
former century, accepted dogma and teachings they did not fully
understand or personally investigate, G.A.Kerkut, an evolutionist,
points out that many present-day undergraduates have succumbed to the
same unthinking tendencies in their studies in general, and in accepting
evolution in biology in particular.
"For some years now (he writes), I have tutored undergraduates on
various aspects of biology. It is quite common, during the course of
conversation, to ask the student if he knows the evidence for evolution.
This usually evokes a faintly superior smile. ... 'Well, sir, there is
the evidence from paleontology, comparative anatomy, embryology,
systematics, and geographical distributions,' the student would say in a
nursery rhyme jargon, sometimes even ticking off the words on this
fingers. He would then sit and look fairly complacent and wait for a
more difficult question, such as the nature of the evidence for natural
selection. Instead I would continue on evolution.
"'Do you think that the evolutionary theory is the best explanation yet
advanced to explain animal interrelationships?' I would ask.
"'Why, of course, sir,' would be the reply. 'There *is* nothing else,
except for the religious explanation held by some Fundamentalist
Christians, and I gather, sir, that these views are no longer held by
the more up-to-date Churchmen.'
"'So you believe in evolution because there is no other theory?'
"'Oh, no, sir, I believe in it because of the evidence I just mentioned.'
"'Have you read any book on the evidence for evolution?' I would ask.
"'Yes, sir.' And here he would mention the names of authors of a popular
school textbook. 'And of course, sir, there is that book by Darwin, _The
Origin of Species_.'
"'Have you read this book?' I would ask.
"'Well, not all through, sir.'
"'The first 50 pages?'
"'Yes, sir, about that much; maybe a bit less.'
"'I see. And that has given you your firm understanding of evolution?'
"'Yes, sir.'
"Well, now, if you really understand an argument you will be able to
indicate to me not only the points in favor of the argument, but also
the most telling points against it.'
"'I suppose so, sir.'
"'Good. Please tell me, then, some of the evidence against the theory of
evolution.'
"'But there isn't any, sir.'
"Here the conversation would take on a more strained atmosphere. The
student would look at me as if I were playing a very unfair game. He
would take it rather badly when I suggested that he was not being very
scientific in his outlook if he swallowed the latest scientific dogma
and, when question, just repeated parrot-fashion the views of the current
Archbishop of Evolution. In fact he would be behaving like certain of
those religious students he affected to despise. He would be taking on
faith what he could not intellectually understand and, when questioned,
would appeal to authority of a 'good book,' which in this case was _The
Origin of Species_. (It is interesting to note that many of these widely
quoted books are read by title only. Three of such that come to mind are
the Bible, _The Origin of Species_, and _Das Kapital_.)
"I would suggest that the student should go away and read the evidence
for and against evolution and present it as an essay. A week would pass
and the same student would appear armed with an essay on the evidence
for evolution. The essay would usually be well done, since the students
might have realized that I should be rough to convince. When the essay
had been read and the question concerning the evidence against evolution
came up, the student would give a rather pained smile. 'Well, sir, I
looked up various books but could not find anything in the scientific
books against evolution. I did not think you would want a religious
argument.' 'No, you were quite correct. I want a scientific argument
against evolution.' 'Well, sir, there does not seem to be one, and that
in itself is a piece of evidence in favor of the evolutionary theory.'
"I would then indicate to him that the theory of evolution was of
considerable antiquity, and would mention that he might have looked at
the book by Radi, _The History of Biological Theories_. Having made
sure the student had noted the book down for future reference I would
proceed as follows:
"'Before one can decide that the theory of evolution is the best
explanation of the present-day range of forms of living material, one
should examine all the implications that such a theory may hold. Too
ofter the theory is applied to, say, the development of the horse, and
then, because it is held to be applicable there, it is extended to the
rest of the animal kingdom with little or no further evidence.
"'There are, however, seven basic assumptions that are often not
mentioned during discussions of evolution. Many evolutionists ignore the
first six and consider only the seventh.
"'The first assumption is that nonliving things gave rise to living
material, i.e., that spontaneous generation occurred.
"'The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only
once.
"'The third ... is that viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals are
interrelated.
"'The fourth ... is that the protozoa gave rise to the metazoa.
"'The fifth ... is that the various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.
"'The sixth ... is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.
"'The seventh ... is that the vertebrates and fish gave rise to the
amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and the reptiles to the birds
and mammals. Sometimes this is expressed in other words, i.e., that the
modern amphibia and reptiles had a common ancestral stock, and so on.
"'For the initial purposes of this discussion on evolution I shall
consider that the supporters of the theory of evolution hold that all
these seven assumptions are valid, and that there assumptions form the
general theory of evolution.
"'The first point that I should like to make is that THE SEVEN ASSUMP-
TIONS BY THEIR NATURE ARE NOT CAPABLE OF EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION.
[Emphasis Little's.] They assume that a certain series of events has
occurred in the past. Thus, though it may be possible to mimic some
of these events under present-day conditions, this does not mean that
these events *must* therefore have taken place in the past. All that it
shows is that it is *possible* for such a change to take place. Thus, to
change a present-day reptile into a mammal, though of great interest,
would not show the way in which the mammals *did* arise. Unfortunately,
we cannot bring about even this change; instead we have to depend upon
limited circumstantial evidence for our assumptions, and it is now my
intention to discuss the nature of this evidence.'"
--
The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford
{amd,decwrl,sun,idi,ittvax}!qubix!lab
You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.