[...]
>
>BH>Well, I said I was going to forget the gravity illustration,
>>however, I just thought of an interesting example :). The first
>>really dramatic confirmation of Newtonianism, comparable to
>>the deflected light experiments confirming Einsteins theory,
>>involved the shape of the earth. Newton's theory was irrevocably
>>tied to the earth having an oblate spheroid shape whereas
>>Newton's competition (the Cartesians) predicted a prolate
>>spheroid. Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis led an expedition
>>to Lapland to measure the length of a degree along the meridian.
>>Comparing this to a similar measurement made at the equator
>>settled the issue. My point here is that the actual process
>>which generated the oblate spheroid shape was an historical
>>process which could not be repeated.
>
>SJ>It was also witnessed by human observers-which macroevolution has
>not been, and according to Dobzhansky, cannot be.
>
No one witnessed the (hypothetical) historical process during
which gravity, acting according to the (hypothetical) inverse
square law, produced the oblate shape of the earth.
I imagine that you might not have a problem with inferring
a historical process from the current shape of the earth.
I also imagine that some young earth creationists might have
a big problem with it.
[...]
>SJ:==
>Indeed Maupertuis and his philosophical axiom "of least action" is
>even mentioned by Darwin in the OoS:
>
>"It has been maintained by several authors that it is as easy to
>believe in the creation of a million beings as of one; but
>Maupertuis's philosophical axiom "of least action" leads the mind
>more willingly to admit the smaller number, and certainly we ought
>not to believe that innumerable beings within each great class have
>been created with plain, but deceptive, marks of descent from a
>single parent." (Darwin C., "The Origin of Species", [1872], 6th
>edition, Everyman's Library, p457)
>
Thanks for this. I had read that Maupertuis interpreted all
of his scientific investigations in terms of his principle
of least action, including his views on evolution. I was
kind of puzzled at what his reasoning for this might be
[unfortunately, none of Maupertuis's works have been translated
into English (as far as I know), so I have to content myself
with short quotations]. Evolution is commonly characterized
as a wasteful process, yet least action is a principle of
economy. I guess Darwin gives one way of reconciling this
apparent contradiction with the idea that creating one or
a few beings would be more economical than creating
'innumerable beings'.
To avoid possible confusion, I should point out that the
application of least action in physics doesn't involve
speculations such as those above ;-).
[...]
>
>BH>One final question. Would you extend your criticisms to
>>other historical sciences such as cosmology, abandoning
>>in the process the various arguments from design based
>>on cosmology?
>
>SJ>See above. You seem not to understand that "evolution" is not
>simply just another historical science. It is also an alternative
>creation story:
>
I'm trying to understand your point of view on this. As far as
I'm concerned, when we are discussing science, evolution is just
another historical science. In fact, the word evolution is
commonly used in cosmology. It seems that a lot of people
would like to reserve the word evolution as applying only to
biological evolution. It seems to be too late for that.
[...]
>
>>SJ>Indeed, according to Popper (and Patterson?), macroevolution is
>>>not even science, but is really history:
>
>BH>Where has Popper said that macroevolution is not science?
>>
>>[deleted Patterson quote]
>
>Patterson doesn't given any references, but I found this is by
>Lewontin:
>
I'm going to treat Popper in a separate thread.
[...]
[skipped a lot of plasticity stuff]
>SJ>
>Interesting. But are there really "plasticians"?
>
Yes.
>BH>However ;-), my original point was that your argument
>>seems incoherent to me (no offense intended). You seem to
>>be wanting to counter the statement that most scientists
>>believe evolution is a fact. But whether or not all scientists
>>believe Darwinist evolution is a fact is unrelated to whether
>>most believe evolution is a fact. Pointing out the one
>>does not undermine the other just as pointing out that
>>not all plasticians accept endochronic plasticity does
>>not undermine the fact that all plasticians believe plasticity
>>is a fact.
>
>SJ>No. I want to counter the implied argument that *Darwinian*
>"evolution is a fact". I suggest the reason my argument seems
>"incoherent" to you is that you have so internalised the
>evolutionary paradigm (no offense intended), that you genuinely
>cannot see the point of those who haven't.
>
Where ever I have seen the "fact of evolution" discussed it is
always contrasted with theories of evolution which are not
facts. There are facts and there are theories that attempt
to explain those facts. We find this distinction in all of
science, not just evolution.
>SJ>The only way out is for you to start giving clear and consistent
>definitions of words, particularly the word "evolution". It is such
>an all-purpose word that it can mean just about anything, and hence
>is an almost certain way of becoming verbally self-deceived (no
>offense intended).
>
It is true that evolution is used in many ways. One must always
be careful to look at context to see what is meant by the
word. The same is true for other oft used words like freedom,
love etc.
>
>>>BH>OK, fine, but now I'm becoming a bit confused. Perhaps I
>>>>misunderstood what you meant by unavoidable. I thought you were
>>>>arguing that it is unavoidable for creationists to use the argument
>>>>from authority since evolutionists use the argument. A kind of
>>>>"turn about is fair play" type thing. Can you clarify?
>
>>>SJ>OK. Firstly, in my Difficulties of Darwinism series, I was arguing
>>>against the Darwinist argument from authority that "all reputable
>>>scientists accept that evolution is a fact", etc, by pointing out
>>>that not all scientists accept that *Darwinist* evolution is a fact.
>>>To be sure, Darwinists sometimes make the same point, but it is
>>>muted. Also, because the words "evolution" and "Darwin's theory of
>>>evolution" (etc), are used interchangeably, the impression is still
>>>given that Darwinist evolution is a fact.
>>>
>>>Secondly, the argument from authority is used by Darwinists routinely
>>>and unavoidably. Therefore creationists are entitled to rebut that
>>>Darwinist argument from authority by producing their own authorities
>>>who argue against Darwinist evolution.
>
>BH>Thanks for the clarification. Now I must return to my original
>>comment and say that your approach is not supported by the
>>Phil Johnson quote. Phil is saying that the argument is
>>unavoidable on account of the weakness of the evidence.
>>Phil is not supporting the use of the argument from authority
>>by creationists or anyone else. Remember, this is one of those
>>things that is supposed to set off one's baloney detector ;-).
>
>For the umpteenth time-I am *not* using "the argument from
>authority"!! I am arguing *against* Darwinist's "argument from
>authority"!!!! Really Brian-how many times do I have to say it?
>
Well, earlier in this thread you wrote:
#SJ>I am completely unrepentant that this part of the series is an
#argument from authority. Darwinists use the argument from authority
#routinely-their works are full of claims that "all reputable biologists
#accept evolution", etc. As Johnson points out, appeal to authority
#is particularly unavoidable in the case of Darwinism:
So hopefully you can understand that I'm confused by your position.
But, the important thing is that you've repented, so we can
drop this.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"It is not certain that all is uncertain,
to the glory of skepticism." -- Pascal