Re: Something from nothing

Bill Hamilton (hamilton@predator.cs.gmr.com)
Tue, 23 May 1995 08:47:26 -0500

Steve quoted Glenn:
>>While technically you may be correct that you do not need to provide an
>>alternative explanation, to omit an alternative means that you have lost the
>>battle for the hearts and mind of your audience. It is human nature for
>>people to hold onto any explaination even if it has problems rather than jump
>>to no explanation at all.

Furthermore, science works with models. Models which explain observed
phenomena and make testable predictions are useful. More successful
predictions increase confidence in the model. Science without models is
speculation.
>

Steve responded to Glenn

>Agreed in the long run. But the first task IMHO is to examine
>Darwinism and see if its assertions are valid. Macbeth says:
>
>"Courtroom experience during my career at the bar taught me to attach
>great weight to something that may seem trivial to persons not skilled
>in argumentation-the burden of proof. The proponents of a theory, in
>science or elsewhere, are obligated to support every link in the chain
>of reasoning, whereas a critic or skeptic may peck at any aspect of
>the
>theory, testing it for flaws. He is not obligated to set up any
>theory
>of his own or to offer any alternative explanations. He can be purely
>negative if he so desires. William Jennings Bryan forgot this in
>Tennessee, and was jockeyed into trying to defend fundamentalism,
>although this was not necessary to the matter in hand. The results
>were disastrous. They would have been equally disastrous for CIarence
>Darrow if he had tried to discharge the burden of proof for the other
>side. The winner in these matters is the skeptic who has no case to
>prove."
>
>(Macbeth N., "Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason", 1978 (reprint),
>Garnstone Press, London, p5)

It seems to me that this analogy is to some extent flawed. Even in the
courtroom, I think it applies better to the defense than to the
prosecution. The prosecution must build a case and all the defense has to
do is point out the flaws in the case. If he does so sucessfully the
prosecution's case is destroyed. The prosecution probably has to work more
like the scientist -- painstakingly building a case that shows that the
defendant did commit the act he's accused of. If the defense can show that
a key link in the prsecution's chain of evidence and reasoning is flawed,
the prosecution's case is destroyed and the prosecution loses. A good
defense attorney will try to destroy his opponent's case -- that's what he
was hired to do. Whether the opponent really has a case is secondary. He
will stand or fall on whether he can convince a jury that he has a case.
Rhetoric and drama are legitimate tools in such a contest.

In science there is a legitimate role for the "defense attorney" function.
There are anomalies and poorly understood phenomena, and it's always seemed
to me that those are good areas to investigate, because if a new
investigation can improve or understanding, everyone benefits -- even if an
existing paradigm is badly damaged or destroyed. But if you want to do
this and have scientists listen to you, come as a scientist, not a hired
gun who wants to destroy something and walk off. Contribute useful
knowledge and you will be listened to. I mentioned above that you can
destroy a legal case by showing that a key element in the chain of evidence
and reasoning is flawed, and I think that's the other problem with
crationist attacks on evolution. They would have to convince the
specialists in the field they are attacking that they have truly
demonstrated that key evidence is flawed. I don't believe they have
accomplished that.
>

Glenn continues

>>Besides, to me, it is not intellectually honest to
>>always avoid coming up with a workable theory rather than merely critiquing
>>what others have created. We should be more than mere debunkers of evolution
>>or nihilists!
>
Steve replies

>Give me a break Glenn! Are you seriously advancing the proposition
>that the average layman has either to accept Darwinism or come up
>with their own alternative?
>
The average layman who has not determined to make himself a player in the
creation/evolution controversy has no such obligation. _But_ if you inject
yourself into the controversy and take a position, and Bible-believing
Christians are following you, looking to you for leadership and teaching,
_then_ you have a sacred obligation not to lead them astray. James 3:1.

Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)