On Wed, 15 Dec 1999 06:11:56 -0600, John E. Rylander wrote:
[...]
>CC>In any case, this is an area for research. But it does not help
>>that Jone's
>>and Behe pretend to have proved something when they've only just barely
>>*begun*.
JR>I think it would be very tempting but nonetheless a serious error to
>conflate Michael Behe (or Nelson, Dembski, Meyer, et al) with his supporters
>here. ID gets a quantitatively strong defense on this list, but the quality
>is sadly lacking.
I would be the first to agree, that compared with "Behe...or Nelson,
Dembski, Meyer, et al" the quality of my posts is "sadly lacking"!
Mind you, John rejects out of hand their high "quality" ID arguments just
as much as he rejects my lesser "quality" arguments.
JR>Remember, I agree fully that ID is a philosophical
>research program (no insult there, in my view), often supported by unsoundly
>over-stated arguments, that conceivably may someday become scientific --
>it's certainly not a serious scientific rival for evolution right now.
And from the point of view of John's own evolutionist "philosophical
research program" he no doubt hopes that it never will be?
JR>Behe et al are wrong, I think; but not (unlike some) incorrigible.
Websters online dictionary defines "incorrigible" as "incapable of being
corrected or amended" (http://www.mw.com/cgi-bin/dictionary). In my
case I have recently posted in where I changed my mind over common
ancestry, in response to evolutionists' arguments. Maybe John or Chris
could post examples of where their views have been "corrected or
amended" in response to creationist or ID arguments?
In any event, it is simply *irrelevant* whether IDers or evolutionists are
"incorrigible" or not. What matters is their *arguments*:
"But, intone Ruse and Overton, what if the creationists still do not change
their minds, even when presented with what most people regard as
thoroughly compelling refutations of their theories? Well, that tells us
something interesting about the psychology of creationists, but it has no
bearing whatever on an assessment of their doctrines. After all, when
confronted by comparable problems in other walks of life, we proceed
exactly as I am proposing, that is, by distinguishing beliefs from believers.
When, for instance, several experiments turn out contrary to the
predictions of a certain theory, we do not care whether the scientist who
invented the theory is prepared to change his mind. We do not say that his
theory cannot be tested, simply because he refuses to accept the results of
the test. Similarly, a jury may reach the conclusions in light of the
appropriate rules of evidence, that a defendant who pleaded innocent is, in
fact, guilty. Do we say that the defendant's assertion `I am innocent' can be
tested only if the defendant himself is prepared to admit his guilt when
finally confronted with the coup de grace?." (Laudan L., "More on
Creationism", in Ruse M., ed., "But is it Science?", 1996, pp365-366).
Evolutionists appear to be addicted to ad hominems in order to discredit
their opposition personally, rather than simply refute their arguments, not
just on this List, but in their books and articles as well. This is OK by IDers
and creationists as it makes uncommitted members of the public wonder
why, if Evolution has the answers, evolutionists don't just use them?
But in view of Chris's recent announced intention to forswear ad hominem
arguments as "a waste of time", other evolutionists on this List might try
also to make it their New Millennium resolution!
It would certainly improve the quality of this List and make it better fulfill
what it was really intended to be.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I now wish to give some reasons why I regard Darwinism as metaphysical,
and as a research programme. It is metaphysical because it is not testable.
One might think that it is. It seems to assert that, if ever on some planet we
find life which satisfies conditions (a) and (b), then (c) will come into play
and bring about in time a rich variety of distinct forms. Darwinism,
however, does not assert as much as this. For assume that we find life on
Mars consisting of exactly three species of bacteria with a genetic outfit
similar to that of three terrestrial species. Is Darwinism refuted? By no
means. We shall say that these three species were the only forms among the
many mutants which were sufficiently well adjusted to survive. And we
shall say the same if there is only one species (or none). Thus Darwinism
does not really predict the evolution of variety. It therefore cannot really
explain it. At best, it can predict the evolution of variety under "favourable
conditions". But it is hardly possible to describe in general terms what
favourable conditions are except that, in their presence, a variety of forms
will emerge." (Popper K., "Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography",
Open Court: La Salle Ill., Revised Edition, 1982, p171)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------