Re: evolution evidence
Kevin Wirth (kevin.wirth@accessone.com)
Sat, 1 Jul 95 13:08:41 PDT>To: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu (Steve Clark)
>From: kevin.wirth@accessone.com (Kevin Wirth)
>Subject: Re: evolution evidence
>
>>I would like to jump into the middle of the conversation between Lloyd Eby
>>and Kevin Wirth. I support Lloyd's contention that Kevin requires too much
>>of scientific theory. Kevin expouses a postivisitic view of science which
>>unduly constrains what science can and cannot do.
>
>You have also missed my point. I never said that science must be constrained
>about anything. The whole point I have been attempting to make in these recent
>rounds is that we find ourselves at risk when we allow the distinction
between *possibilities* and *realities* to become blurred to the point where
speculative ideas take a more prominant position than is warranted. Think
about it. Think about
>the impact of the *stories*. These stories are not viewes as *possibilities*
>by most folks, they've come to roost as established dogma. This is dangerous
>ground. If you're going to take me to task for some stupid label, and dismiss
>my comments simply because you think *positivism* is a *poor critique of
science*,
>then you have once again taken the lazy man's approach to marginalization.
Sorry,
>but it won't do. Now you begin to comment on the generalities of
positivism instead
>of addressing the specific issues I am contesting. Who can I have a
conversation
>with someone who would prefer to debate the generic philosophical issues
which *may*
>align somewhat with my views and yet ignore the specific issues I raise?
>
>>This positivism is a frequent and poor critique of science by some on this
>>reflector. The major
>>problems are that by requiring theories to be supported by explicit proof
>>denies the inherently speculative nature of theories.
>
>YOU AREN'T LISTENING CAREFULLY! I never never NEVER said that I require
theories
>*to be supported by explicit proof*. You need to turn off whatever filter you
>have and read what I wrote. Maybe then you would get a
>sense of what I *am* saying instead of what you *think* I'm saying. How many
>different ways do I need to express a concept for it to be communicated
clearly?
>I think my writing style is pretty straightforward and to the point. I don't
>think I leave much room for confusion about what I have to say. So I don't
>understand how you think I'm advocating something I never advocated. Stop
trying
>to analyze where to pigeon-hole my frame of reference and thereby seek to learn
>all about me. It won't work.
>
>Has anyone else who has been following my thread in these discussions read
anything
>I wrote which indicated that I require theories *to be supported by
explicit proof*??
>
>In fact, I think I recall saying NUMEROUS times that *imagination is a
legitimate
>part of science*. The problem ISN'T that we use imagination, the problem is
>WHERE WE ALLOW THAT TO LEAD OUR THINKING. Instead of holding their speculative
>notions tentatively, which good science requires in such instances (anyone
object
>to THAT?), we find that many who are in a position of acting as the
guardians of
>these notions have instead not only allowed these ideas to become
established as
>dogma, but they openly promote them as such! Are you telling me you don't
see a
>problem here? Are you telling me that we should continue to allow
SPECULATION to
>effectively FUNCTION in the role of *evidence* -- which it most certainly
does in
>evolutionary theory? You're suggesting that we should continue to allow (I was
>allowed...) students to be *protected* from dissent? That students should
not be
>permitted to think that perhaps other (equally speculative) ideas about
life's origin and development are worthy of consideration? If evolutionary
ideas are knit together
>by specualtion, then I'm pretty sure that there is no rational argument
against allowing other speculative ideas into the discussion.
>
>But, and I keep coming back to this, that's not the *reality*, is it? We find
>students, educators, and scientists in a pressure cooker of coercion to CONFORM
>to evolutionary *evidence*, which is really *evidence* PLUS *speculation*.
>
>You can call me what you want, but, sorry -- you can't dismiss this issue by
>marginalizing my comments with a label which is misplaced.
>
>
>>KW
>>>> What I said was that the
>>>> DATA or the EVIDENCE is linked with speculative and imaginative STORIES.
>>>> These are fantasies, and some of the best men in paleontology and other
>>>> fields of science related to this issue readily admit it!
>>
>>LE
>>>*All* scientific theories, without exception, are what you call
>>>"speculative and imaginative STORIES" because all theories go beyond the
>>>evidence for them.
>>
>>(snip)
>>>You may indeed be right in claiming that the story (theory) of evolution
>>>has too many gaps, leaps, and speculations. But gaps, leaps, and
>>>speculations *in themselves* are not evidence of non-scientificness or
>>>speciousness because *all* theories and stories have them.
>>
>>I would add that alternative models to explain origins suffer from their own
>>problems in this area, yet those who criticise evolution theory on this basis
>>do not seem willing to apply a similarly rigorous of proof on their pet
>>models. What model for origins are not "linked with speculative and
>>imaginative STORIES"?
>
>Again, I AGREE with this. You're preaching to the choir here. I'm talking
>about the ABUSE of a legitimate scientific practice.
>
>Has anyone else picked this up from what I've been writing all this time? If
>no one else has, then, I will refrain from making further comment on this
issue.
>
>
>>>Perhaps I've read too much into your argument. But, as I've thought over
>>>it, I've concluded that you are indeed accepting or working with a
>>>positivist understanding of science, and that is what I am protesting.
>>
>>I also protest. This criticism is too much like the complaint of logical
>>postivists that atomic theory is full of gaps, leaps and speculations
>>because no one has ever seen an atom. Borrowing from an earlier debate I
>>had with Walter ReMine, different types of knowledge carry different degrees
>>of certainty of truth.
>
>Aha -- now we're getting somewhere! I have made this same exact point in a
>dabate earlier this year... It IS a matter of degree!
>
>>Because the evidence for evolution is not as
>>convincing as the evidence that the Red Sox currently lead their division,
>>doesn't necessarily minimize the value of the evolution hypothesis.
>
>THAT'S MY POINT! It most certainly DOES make a difference! If degrees of
>liklihood are not a factor, then ANYthing goes!
>
>
>>If the
>>evolution hypothesis is wrong, science really will not suffer because
>>science needs the freedom to test both right and wrong hypotheses (stories).
>
>Oh, but if I oppose evolution, then *I* am opposing science as a whole
(according
>to a recent post on my comments).
>
>Look, I AGREE that science needs this *freedom* to test. What I DISAGREE
with is
>that WHILE WE ARE STILL TESTING, WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO SAY *we know it happened*.
>We DON'T know it happened! We don't know HOW evolution happened. We don't
have
>any compelling EVIDENCE that it happened. All we have is the notions which
indi-
>cate that it *might have* happened.
>
> *The fundamental inherent difficulty in the study of evolution is that
this
>great natural process invloves time dimensions of a magnitude quite out of
propor-
>tion to the duration of human life or even to the sum of human experience,
and the
>observer has therefore to rely on indirect, or circumstantial evidence. Hence,
>beliefs that are often referred to as *theories* of evolution are, more
accurately,
>only working hypotheses. This is a very important matter because the
essence of
>a hypotheses is that it is an opinion suggested by the available evidence. A
>hypothesis may well be substantiated when more corroborative details are forth-
>coming, but until then there is no logical reason for excluding the
consideration
>of some other explanation of the facts. So, while it may be justifiable to
believe
>that evolution affords a reasonable explanation of the facts of nature, it
is not
>justifiable to maintain that no other explanation is possible or permissable.*
>
>Ok guys -- I'll give you the reference to this quote -- but first -- tell
me if this
>person is a positivist? An evolutionist or a creationist (take your best
guess, and use percentages if it'll make you feel more comfortable)
>
>
>There's something else you need to keep factored into this discussion which is
>often forgotten. If you say that the Red Sox ARE in first place in their
division,
>and Seattle is in the cellar -- it's not likely to be an earthshaking event if
>you happen to be wrong (for most of us...). But IF you are wrong about
evolution,
>you have a WHOLE LOT more to answer for. This is yet another type of
*degree*, and
>that is the *degree of responsibility* for advocating something which has
such a
>significant impact. You need to keep in mind here that being accountable for
>influencing the way people think about how the world evolved and telling us
who
>you think will eventually win the Western and Eastern Division are worlds
apart
>in terms of significance.
>
>Let me put it another way.
>
>I feel quite comfortable driving down the hill from where I live, jumping out
>of my car, running across a familiar stretch of lawn and sand, and diving into
>Lake Sam. But it would occur to me to exercise a much higher degree of caution
>if I found myself in the middle of certain sections of desert sand in Kuwait.
>Because there are still mines out there, courtesy of our friend, Saddam.
>
>By the same token -- those who have the responsibility of promoting an evolu-
>tionary view are subject to a greater degree of responsibility and caution
when
>they PROMOTE their views. You can still use imagination. You can still
speculate.
>But hey -- let's not strike up the band and say *YEAH! WE FINALLY FOUND THAT
>MISSING LINK!*, because I guarantee you -- I PREDICT -- they won't be
found, and
>certainly not in the numbers that will be required to compel us all, once
and for
>all, that it really happened that way. And let's not say this *is* what
happened
>when we should be saying this is what we think *might have* happened.
There's a
>big difference. It has a lot more to do with presenting a case honestly
than it
>does with your right to speculate. I don't challenge your right to speculate.
>I challenge the way in which far too many evolutionists *present* their
>speculations. I challenge how they ALLOW the general public to continue to be
>misled into thinking that evolution is so well established that we only have
>mop-up duty left. I take issue with that. We're nowhere NEAR that stage...
>
>Do you see the difference here? Do you still insist on marginalizing me as a
>positivist?
>
>>Evolution (and its derivatives) is the only mechanistic hypothesis currently
>>available for testing because it tries to explain the naturalistic methods
>>by which God created, and not whether God did it all at once, or in spurts.
>
>Well, as Norman Macbeth once said, the *best of field fallacy* isn't such a
>great notion.
>
>
>Kevin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Kevin Wirth, President
Wirth & Associates
1420 NW Gilman Blvd. #2563
Issaquah, WA 98027-7001
(206) 391-3698 PHONE