This email from Chris came to me direct, ie. not to the Reflector.
But it was not marked *private* and appears to be public, so I am
assuming it was meant to be sent to the Reflector by Chris and so
I am replying via the Reflector.
On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:08:44 -0800, Chris Cogan wrote:
CC>This is not my entire response to Stephen's systematic misreading of my
>table (and of some of the authors he quotes), by any means. I'm just
>throwing this out to demonstrate how Stephen's mind works. Or doesn't.
Once I used to be offended by this kind of evolutionist ad hominem but
now I realise that the evolutionists might be being perfectly sincere, in that
they genuinely believe that anyone who does not believe in evolution, is, in
Dawkins words, "ignorant, stupid or insane...or wicked":
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to
believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked,
but I'd rather not consider that)." (Dawkins R., "Put Your Money on
Evolution", Review of Johanson D. & Edey M.A,, "Blueprints: Solving the
Mystery of Evolution", in New York Times, April 9, 1989, sec. 7, p34)
I wrote on another List that to a committed evolutionist, evolution is nearly
as true (if not as true, or even more true), than a law of physics. Thus Julian
Huxley, co-founder of the Neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis, in addressing
the 1959 Darwin Centennial in Chicago asserted that "all aspects of reality
are subject to evolution" and indeed "all reality *is* a single process of
evolution" (my emphasis):
"This centennial celebration is one of the first occasions on which it has
been frankly faced that all aspects of reality are subject to evolution, from
atoms and stars to fish and flowers, from fish and flowers to human
societies and values - indeed that all reality is a single process of
evolution." (Huxley J., "The Humanist Frame", in "Essays of a Humanist",
1969, reprint, p78).
The nearest analogy I could think of is how we would regard a group of
people who denied the law of gravity. We would rightly regard them as
either stupid, crazy or wicked!
But the problem with this analogy, is that in the case of fully naturalistic
evolution, it would be 90% of the public who are stupid, crazy or wicked,
and only 10% who would be wise, sane and good!
So Chris can sincerely publish his table of Evolution vs Design Theory for
comment. Yet when an IDer like myself does comment and point out the
vagueness of his Evolution column and the strawman caricatures of his
Design column, Chris is genuinely puzzled. Since Evolution, on this
analysis, to a committed evolutionist like Chris, has a status analogous to a
law of nature, it is simply impossible that there could be valid criticism of
Evolution, of any substance.
Therefore, the fault *must* lie in the person daring to criticise Evolution!
Such a one is like someone who criticises a well established law of physics,
like gravity - he *must* be either stupid, crazy or wicked. In fact evolutionists
on this List have, from time to time, claimed that anti-evolutionists are all three,
although usually not in the same post! :-)
But Chris is charitable and doesn't say that I am crazy, but merely that, in
effect, that I am somewhere between stupid and wicked, namely guilty of
"systematic misreading of" Chris' "table" and for good measure of "some of
the authors" that I quoted!
None of this fazes me in the slightest, since I am used to it by now. Johnson
has pointed out that evolutionists have routinely used this ad hominem
dismissing of opponents in their rarefied circles, but now the debate is coming
out into the open where 90% of the general public don't believe in fully naturalistic
evolution, then evolutionists like Chris are going to find that `shooting the
messenger' doesn't always work as well as it has in the past.
So sooner or later evolutionists are going to have to face up to the IDers'
arguments, take them seriously, and rebut them point-by-point, if they can,
before the court of public opinion, in the full glare of the media spotlight. If
they do this successfully, then (and only then), can the evolutionists truly
claim to have won.
But if the evolutionists fail to adapt to this new environmental challenge,
and keep denying reality, then they will simply fail to survive and pass their
memes on to the next generation, although a diminishing number may
continue on as living fossils! :-)
So I don't really mind if evolutionists use ad hominems as a substitute for
argument. If they don't take the opportunity to understand ID's arguments,
that will make it easier for ID to make rapid progress!
>>CC>Does it [the theory] imply that animal breeding will work?
>>>[E] Yes.
>SJ>> Since animal breeding was going for centuries, if not millennia before
>>Darwin, it is not surprising that evolution would "imply that animal
>>breeding will work"!
>CC>That's true, but it is *not* implied by ID theory. That is, positing a
>designer does not imply that animal breeding will work. It does not imply
>evolution of *any* sort, not even microevolution.
>Replication-variation-selection evolution *does* imply that animal breeding
>will work.
It is *by* human intelligent designers that animal breeding *does* work! If
the human breeders did not select for the characteristics they wanted, and
protect the animals with those characteristics from breeding with
other members of their species which did not have those characteristics,
then the selectively bred characteristics would quickly be lost:
"...the dog breeder's art is a form of intelligent design...design
executed by selection is still design. A determined human breeder with
unlimited time might be able to breed a race of winged rodents, if we make
the generous assumption that "mutation" provides the raw variability for
change of that kind. That is because the breeder would do with the rodents
what breeders do with dogs or sheep -- select relentlessly for a single
characteristic and protect the resulting "freaks of nature" from the forces of
nature that would otherwise surely exterminate them. Artificial selection
works because it incorporates foresight and conscious purpose, the absence
of which are the defining qualities of The Blind Watchmaker."
(Johnson P.E., "1992 Founder's Lectures", "Part 2: The Blind Watchmaker
Thesis", Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Revised, February 17, 1992.
http://www2.apologetics.org/articles/founder2.html)
>SJ>>But the fact is that Darwin thought that breeding variation should be
>>unlimited and he was proven wrong by breeding experiments:
>CC>Can you tell me what Darwin has to do with this? Did I say *anything* to
>indicate that I was relying on pre-genetics-gradualistic-uniformitarianism
>Darwinism?
Chris was talking of predictions of evolution. The original predictions by
Darwin was that variation would be unlimited, but this was proved false.
Evolutionists then changed their theory but then gave the impression that
their theory all along predicted that variation was *not* unlimited!
CC>No, I didn't. I *do* wish you'd learn to read.
See above. The problem for Chris is that I *have* learned to read -
especially evolutionist history!
>>CC>[D] No.
>SJ>>Maybe Chris could explain *why* ID theory would imply that animal
>>breeding will not work?
>CC>Maybe you could explain why you systematically misrepresent what your
>opponents say?
CC>Did I say that ID theory implied that animal breeding would not work?
>
>No, I didn't. I *do* wish you'd learn to read.
>
>I said that ID theory does not *imply* that it will work.
OK. My mistake. I missed the distinction between ID implying that animal
breeding will not work and ID not implying that animal breeding will work!
In that case, for the record, I change my question to:
"Maybe Chris could explain *why* ID theory would not imply that animal
breeding will work?"
However, I note that Chris has already answered below.
>>CC>Does it [the theory] imply that animal breeding will work?
>>>[E] Yes.
CC>It leaves the question open,
If that is the case, then why did Chris say "No"?
CC>because ID theory is a non-empirical and non-scientific
>theory. It doesn't imply *anything* about the empirical facts.
And if that were the case (which it isn't) then what would be the point of
Chris comparing Evolution and Design Theory?
Chris' very act of comparing Design theory with Evolution theory implies
that Chris is comparing one empirical/scientific theory against another (or
one non-empirical/non-scientific theory against another). It is a category
mistake (like comparing apples with oranges), to claim to be comparing
meaningfully an empirical/scientific theory against a non-empirical/non-
scientific theory.
But thanks to Chris for giving me a good idea! I am going to post on my
web page a similar table comparing Design Theory with Anti-Design
Theory. Here is the start (best read with monospaced font):
==============================================================================
A Comparison of Intelligent Design Theory with Anti-Design Theory
Copyright (c) 1999, Stephen E. Jones
(Note: this table is under construction. Comments
and criticisms welcome - to sejones@iinet.net.au)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Predictions Design Anti- Comments
Theory Design
Theory*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Living things would
appear to be designed Yes No Even opponents of Design
like Dawkins [1] and Crick [2] admit
that living things appear to be
designed.
2. Universe would appear Yes No Modern science has revealed
to be designed to the universe appears to be
support life highly fine-tuned to support
life.
3. Universe and man's Yes No Even non-supporters of
mind would appear to be Design have called this "the
co-designed so that man unreasonable effectiveness
can understand the of mathematics." [3]
underlying mathematical
laws of the universe
References:
[1] "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
having been designed for a purpose." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker", [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p1).
[2] "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not
designed, but rather evolved." (Crick F.H.C., "What Mad Pursuit: A
Personal View of Scientific Discovery", [1988], Penguin Books: London,
1990, reprint, p138)
[3] "It is hard to avoid the impression that a miracle is at work here...The
miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the
formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither
understand nor deserve." (Wigner E.P, "The Unreasonable Effectiveness
of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences", Communications on Pure and
Applied Mathematics, Vol. 13, 1960, pp1-14, in Denton M.J., "Nature's
Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe", The
Free Press: New York NY, 1998, pp259-260)
==============================================================================
* Note I have changed "Evolution" to "Anti-Design Theory". This is because
Design and Evolution (in some senses of the word) are not necessarily
antithetical. What is antithetical to design is the claim that there is
no Designer.
These are empirical tests which alone refute Chris's claim that "ID theory is a
non-empirical and non-scientific theory" which "doesn't imply *anything* about
the empirical facts".
I believe these 3 successful predictions of ID theory, are sufficient to establish
Design as an empirical, scientific theory, on those grounds alone.
But, as the TV commercial says, `there's much, much, more'!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Evolution answers some questions but reveals many more questions.
Some of these questions at this stage appear to be unanswerable in the light
of present scientific knowledge. In common parlance: `The more you
know, the more you know you don't know.'" (Price B., "The Creation
Science Controversy", Millennium Books: Sydney, 1990, p8)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Evolution answers some questions but reveals many more questions.
Some of these questions at this stage appear to be unanswerable in the light
of present scientific knowledge. In common parlance: `The more you
know, the more you know you don't know.'" (Price B., "The Creation
Science Controversy", Millennium Books: Sydney, 1990, p8)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------