On Thu, 18 Apr 1996 00:47:35 -0400 Brian Harper wrote:
CW>Very good. It's really "Catch-22" logic:
>
>1. Only scientific experts can evaluate evolutionary theory.
BH>Here's my $ 0.02 worth. Anyone who wants to can evaluate or
>criticize any theory they want and they can do so using any
>methods or sources they want. This reflector and talk.origins
>are ample evidence of this :-). But if you're not knowledgeable
>in the field and your sources of information are bad and your
>research is sloppy then you definitely will be shot down in
>flames.
I have no problem with this. But no one has yet substantiated that:
1. I am not knowledgeable in the field"; 2. my "sources of information
are bad"; and 3. my "research is sloppy". Of course with Brian as
judge, jury and executioner, all 3 are proven before I even begin! :-)
BH>Further, you'll look even sillier if you start whining about it:
>"Mommy mommy, those mean scientists are picking on me because I'm
>not as good as them". "Now now dear, hasn't mommy always told you
to do your homework?".
This is really interesting. I am not "whining about it", unless
normal challenging of ad hominem comments is "whining" in Brian's
book? Perhaps Brian can substantiate his allegations? But then again
judge, jury and executioners don't need to. :-)
BH>I think this is what it usually boils down to. People get
>shot down and they don't like it (understandably :). Rather
>than own up, they want to blame someone else. This is the
>"its not my fault" generation.
Again, perhaps Brian can let me know who is the "someone else" I am
supposed to be blaming?
BH>The issue of origins is obviously an emotional one and its
>understandable that so many laymen want to get involved in
>the discussion. I should know, although I try to do my
>homework I'm still a layman when it comes to practically
>every topic discussed here.
I am glad Brian has now realised it. His previous posts seemed to
imply that he was the expert and I was just a layman.
BH>But the simple fact of the matter is that there really is a type
>of catch 22 involved. If you want to speak knowledgebly on a subject
>then you have to devote a lot of energy at becoming knowledgeble of
>that subject. These days that's really tough. To tell you the
>truth, I would not feel competent to judge the value a research
>proposal written by one of my colleagues in the office next door,
>much less that of an evolutionary biologist.
I agree with Brian about "becoming knowledgeble of that subject" (ie.
Darwinist macro-evolution). But I disagree with him that means I must
agree with "that subject" - the more I learn about it, the more it
seems to me to be psuedo-knowledge:
"Patterson suggested that both evolution and creation are forms of
pseudo-knowledge, concepts which seem to imply information but do not.
One point of comparison was particularly striking. A common objection
to creationism in pre-Darwinian times was that no one could say
anything about the mechanism of creation. Creationists simply pointed
to the "fact" of creation and conceded ignorance of the means. But
now, according to Patterson, Darwin's theory of natural selection is
under fire and scientists are no longer sure of its general validity.
Evolutionists increasingly talk like creationists in that they point
to a fact but cannot provide an explanation of the means." (Johnson
P.E., "Darwin on Trial", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove
Ill., Second Edition, 1993, p10)
BH>It is true that Denis (and yours truly) have been very rough
>on Steve Jones. But don't lose sight of the fact that there
>has been more to Denis's replies to Steve than rough talk.
>Steve has been debunked over and over but he keeps repeating
>the same stuff. Its very frustrating. A frustration greatly
>accentuated by the fact that Steve believes the frustration
>arises due to his brilliant arguments. You know, those
>brilliant arguments that keep getting refuted over and over. ;-)
I don't think my arguments are "brilliant". Most of them are not
even original, having been thought up by other creationists down
through the years, and especially by Phil Johnson. This is just more
ad hominems to cover up the fact that Darwinists don't have good
answers to creationists questions about how exactly Darwinist
macro-evolution is supposed to have worked. But Johnson gets the same
treatment, so I suppose I am hitting the mark:
"Ask that question and you will get heavy-handed ridicule from the
likes of Jukes and Provine. People who resort to ridicule are often
covering up something. In this case they are hoping to prevent
reasoned examination of a vulnerable assumption. The assumption is
that science knows of a mechanism for evolution (grand system) that
can produce eyes, brains, and even plant cells without the application
of massive amounts of preexisting intelligence." (Johnson P.E.
"Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism", Foundation for
Thought and Ethics, 1990, p34)
BH>It may well be true that one can make reasonable arguments
>without being an expert and by using secondary sources.
Well, Brian seems to differ from Denis here. I should be grateful for
small mercies! :-)
BH>But you're taking a big chance and if turns out that your
>arguments are bad and your then you have only yourself to blame for
>it.
By "bad" read "critical of Darwinist macro-evolution" and "sources are
faulty" read "evolutionist literature which is contains arguments
against aspects of evolution". Belief in the "fact of evolution" is
the standard, so by definition anything against that must be "bad" or
from "sources" that "are faulty"! :-)
BTW, I do accept all of the "blame" for my arguments.
BH>2. To be an expert, you must have an advanced degree.
>
>Not true. I've known experts in my own field who didn't have
>an advanced degree, I've also known PhD's who were incompetent.
Agreed, but I don't claim to be an "expert", in any event.
BH>3. To obtain an advanced degree, you must buy into evolutionism.
>
>There are many examples, some on this reflector, that prove this
>statement to be false. But I think what is really bugging you is
>that most who do devote the time and energy to studying evolution end
>up accepting it.
Actually, its usually the reverse. Most science students just accept
it uncritically because it is presented authoritatively as a "fact".
It is only some of the evoutionists who really spend a lifetime
"studying evolution" (ie. Darwinist macro-evolution) actually "end up"
*rejecting it* (although they still cling to a vague faith in
something called "evolution"). An example is Dr Colin Patterson,
Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London, in
his address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City,
5 November 1981:
"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or
let's call it a non-evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden
realization for over twenty years I had thought I was working on
evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had
happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on
this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about
it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long.
Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong
with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong
with me..." (Snelling A., "The Revised QUOTE BOOK", 1990, Creation
Science Foundation, Brisbane, p4)
BH>Since evolution is obviously false, there must be some evil plot, a
>secret oath one must take to become part of the priesthood.
This is all in Brian's imagination. No one is claiming that there is
any "evil plot". But to turn Brian's argument on its head:
"Since evolution is obviously true" and those who disagree with must
believe that "there must be some evil plot, a secret oath one must
take to become part of the priesthood"! :-)
BH>4. Thus, *all* experts agree on "the fact of evolution."
>
>Just out of curiosity, what do you consider to be the
>"the fact of evolution" as opposed to the "the theory of
>evolution"?
Here is what some evolutionists say about "the fact of evolution":
"And there is also the mystery of how and why evolution takes place at
all...Evolution is a fact, like digestion...Nor is it known just why
evolution occurs, or exactly what guides its steps." (Howells W.,
"Mankind so Far", 1944, Doubleday and Co., New York, p5, in Ramm B.
"The Christian View of Science and Scripture", Paternoster: London,
1955, p189)
"Evolution-is it a fact or a theory? This question echoes an old and
virulent controversy. It is important not only historically but also
because of the light it can still shed on the distinction scientists
make between fact and theory. The process of evolution is a fact. It
occurs. Biologists have watched and measured its progress at the
level of the gene. They have created new species in the laboratory
and in the experimental garden. They have collected a very large
amount of fossil evidence, in many cases so complete that it cannot be
rationally explained by any nonevolutionary hypothesis. On the other
hand, how evolution occurs is a complex matter subject to theory..."
(Wilson E.O., et al., "Life on Earth", Sinauer Associates: Sunderland
Mass., 1973, p769)
Note that claiming that "evolution is a fact" but "we don't know
how it occured", is a little bit of play on the word "evolution" that
attracted Johnson's interest as a specialist in the logic of
arguments. If the experts don't know *how* evolution occurred, how dp
they know it was "evolution"? For example, a Creator might have
supernaturally intervened at strategic points, modifying existing
genetic code. Such a process would fit all the facts, yet it would be
best described as "progressive creation", not "evolution". Johnson
says:
"But consider Colin Patterson's point that a fact of evolution is
vacuous unless it comes with a supporting theory. Absent an
explanation of how fundamental transformations can occur, the bare
statement that "humans evolved from fish" is not impressive. What
makes the fish story impressive, and credible, is that scientists
think they know how a fish can be changed into a human without
miraculous intervention. Charles Darwin made evolution a scientific
concept by showing, or claiming to have shown, that major
transformations could occur in very small steps by purely natural
means, so that time, chance, and differential survival could take the
place of a miracle. If Darwin's scenario of gradual adaptive change
is wrong, then "evolution" may be no more than a label we attach to
the observation that men and fish have certain common features, such
as the vertebrate body plan. Disagreements about the mechanism of
evolution are therefore of fundamental importance to those of us who
want to know whether the scientists really know as much as they have
been claiming to know. An adequate theory of how evolution works is
particularly indispensable when evolution is deemed to imply, as
countless Darwinists have insisted, that purposeless material
mechanisms are responsible for our existence. "Evolution" in the
sense in which, these scientists use the term as a mechanistic
process, and so the content of any "fact" that is left when the
mechanism is subtracted is thoroughly obscure." (Johnson P.E.,
"Darwin on Trial", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second
Edition, 1993, p12).
BH>Here's a nice analogy to consider. Would it bother you at all to
>know that even though plasticity in metals is a well established
>empirical phenomena and there are many mechanisms that have been
>proposed to explain it, there is still no general theory of
>plasticity capable of predicting the behavior? Nevertheless, the
>fact that metals display plastic behavior is still a fact. I assure
>of this with the authority that only a High Priest could muster.
>But you probably don't care, right?
No doubt there are many unexplained things, but there is no
conflict with creationism. Creationism accepts that the normal
ongoing *operation* of the cosmos, is according to natural laws
created and maintained by God. Creationism only conflicts with
naturalistic evoltion on the issue of *origins*.
CW>5. Therefore, evolution is a fundamental, unarguable truth.
>
>Neat, huh?
BH>Yea, neat.
On naturalisms rules "evolution" is indeed "a fundamental,
unarguable truth", therefore it is indeed "neat":
"The Academy thus defined science" in such a way that advocates of
supernatural creation may neither argue for their own position nor
dispute the claims of the scientific establishment. What may be one
way to win an argument, but it is not satisfying to anyone who thinks
it possible that God really did have something to do with creating
mankind, or that some of the claims that scientists make under the
heading of "evolution" may be false." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
Trial", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill. , Second Edition,
1993, p8)
Catch-22! :-)
The only problem for naturalists is Rom 1:18-20:
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the
godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their
wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to
them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the
creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and
divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has
been made, so that men are without excuse."
This declares that it is "plain" to all men from "what has been made"
that there is a Creator-God, but they try to "suppress" this "truth"
(Rom 1:18), and therefore they are left "without excuse" (Rom 1:20).
Naturalism, as a philosophical system, is therefore founded on a false
premise and stands under "the wrath of God" (Rom 1:18).
Please note that in saying the above I make no statement against
*individuals*, only their ideas.
God bless.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------