This came to me directly from Susan but it was not marked private and
appears to be public, so I am replying via the Reflector.
On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 19:57:29 -0600 (CST), Susan B wrote:
[...]
>SJ>>If so, since opinion polls show that 40% of the general public are "anti-
>>evolutionists" and another 40% don't believe in the same type of atheistic
>>"evolution" that Susan believes in, this would be an extraordinary claim
>>which would require extraordinary evidence. I would therefore appreciate
>>it if Susan clarified her claim above.
>
>Be glad to. There are "professional" creationists who know the truth and who
>misrepresent, lie and conceal.
No doubt there may be some "`professional' creationists who know the
truth and who misrepresent, lie and conceal". But how does Susan *know*
which ones they are? They might just be deluded or honestly mistaken.
Susan would need to be omniscient to know that a large number of people
she has never met would definitely "know the truth" and yet would
"misrepresent, lie and conceal".
SB>There are the innocent creationists who are
>being betrayed by people they should be able to trust. Most of the
>creationists fall into the latter category.
Susan would have needed to have exhaustively surveyed the works of
*every* "creationist" writer and teacher on Earth to be able to objectively
make a claim that "Most of the Creationists...know the truth and
misrepresent, lie and conceal".
And what are Susan's objective criteria for deciding which "`professional'
creationists" were those "who know the truth and who misrepresent, lie
and conceal" and which "`professional' creationists" did not "misrepresent,
lie and conceal"?
SB>American science education is
>abysmal. Few Europeans could be fooled by a transparent lie like "evolution
>violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
As Ratzsch points out, this is "Perhaps the most prevalent of the
misconstruals of creationism...when claiming that the Second Law flatly
precludes evolution, major creationists almost invariably have in mind
evolution in the overall cosmic, `evolution model' sense":
"Perhaps the most prevalent of the misconstruals of creationism involves
the Second Law of Thermodynamics....Creationists nearly unanimously
claim that this Second Law poses a nasty problem for evolution.
Unfortunately, exactly what creationists have in mind here is widely
misunderstood. Creationists are at least partly at fault for that confusion.
One reason is that as noted earlier (chapter six), most popular creationists
use the term evolution ambiguously-sometimes to refer to the cosmic
evolutionary worldview (or model) and sometimes to refer to the
Darwinian biological theory. Although a coherent position can be extracted
from some of the major creationists (such as Morris, Gish, Wysong and
Kofahl), this ambiguity has rendered some parts of their writings
monumentally unclear. One has to read extremely carefully in order to see
which evolution is being referred to, and some critics of creationism either
have simply not noticed the ambiguity or perhaps have misjudged which
meaning specific creationists have had in mind in specific passages. And
critics are not the only people who have sometimes been bamboozled.
Other creationists who take their cues from those above have also
sometimes missed some of the key distinctions and have advanced exactly
the original misconstrued arguments that critics have wrongly attributed to
major creationists. In a word or two, we have a four-alarm mess here. But
let's see if we can clear up at least some of it. First, when claiming that the
Second Law flatly precludes evolution, major creationists almost invariably
have in mind evolution in the overall cosmic, "evolution model" sense. The
clues to that meaning are the almost invariable use (especially in Morris's
writings) of phrases like philosophy of evolution or cosmic or universal or
on a cosmic scale. The universe as a whole system is taken to be a closed
system (classically), and according to the creationist definition of evolution
model, that model is unavoidably committed to an internally generated
overall increase in cosmic order, since on that view reality is supposed to
be selfdeveloped and self-governing. What Morris and others mean to be
claiming is that any such view according to which the entire cosmos is itself
in a process of increasing overall order is in violation of the Second Law."
(Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings", 1996, pp91-92)
SB>>If not, maybe Susan would state what is her criteria for deciding which
>>"anti-evolutionists": 1) "ignore what's out there"; 2) "misrepresent what's
>>out there"; or 3) "refuse to accept what's out there".
>
>I've never met an anti-evolutionist who didn't do one or more of the above.
>I've never seen a creationist publication or website (written by
>"professional" creationists) that didn't do all three.
Susan just contradicted herself. She had just said that only "Most of the
creationists" "know the truth and...misrepresent, lie and conceal". Now she
is saying that *all* of them do!
And Susan does not supply her "criteria". It seems that the sole criteria that
decides which "anti-evolutionists: 1) ignore what's out there; 2)
"misrepresent what's out there"; and/or 3) "refuse to accept what's out
there" is because Susan *says so*!
>>SB>I don't believe in the actual existence of any of the gods, even my beloved
>>>Kuan Yin. Therefore I don't oppose the gods (it would be a bit like opposing
>>>the Tooth Fairy).
>>
>>If Susan is not opposing God, she is doing a *very* good imitation of it!
>
>I oppose creationists. That's different from opposing God. Though most
>creationists get that confused.
While to "oppose creationists" is indeed "different from opposing God", I
doubt that God sees it that way! To God, hating Christians is the same as
hating Him. Jesus said that "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it
hated me first" (Jn 15:18). When the risen Christ appeared to Saul (later St.
Paul), who had been persecuting Christians, Jesus said: "Saul, Saul, why do
you persecute me?" (Acts 9:4).
>SJ>Actually Susan touches on an interesting thing. If atheists think that God is
>>the equivalent of the Tooth Fairy, why do they bother arguing against
>>God? Do they spend equal time arguing against the Tooth Fairy?
SB>They are fools? I would find it incredibly boring to do either.
I note that Susan does not answer the question.
arguing against God is because unlike "the Tooth Fairy", Susan knows in
her heart that God is *real*! (Rom 1:20)
>SJ>Personally if I went back to being an atheist again, and I thought that God
>>was just a comforting illusion like the Tooth Fairy, I would not see there
>>was any good reason on atheist premises for robbing my fellow human beings
>>of their comforting illusions
>
>You are so fond of quoting, here's a quote for you from Bertrand Russell:
>
>"I am constantly asked: What can you, with your cold rationalism, offer to
>the seeker after salvation that is comparable to the cosy homelike comfort
>of a fenced-in dogmatic creed? To this the answer is many-sided. In the
>first place, I do not say that I can offer as much happiness as is to be
>obtained by the abdication of reason. I do not say that I can offer as much
>happiness as is to be obtained from drink or drugs or amassing great wealth
>by swindling widows and orphans. It is not the happiness of the individual
>convert that concerns me; it is the happiness of mankind. If you genuinely
>desire the happiness of mankind, certain forms of ignoble pesonal happiness
>are not open to you. If your child is ill, and you are a conscientous
>parent, you accept medical diagnosis, however doubtful and discouraging; if
>you accept the cheerful opinion of a quack and your child consequently dies,
>you are not excused by the pleasantness of belief in the quack while it lasted."
Susan does not give a reference. But no matter. I used to be a follower of
Bertrand Russell, as my testimony on my web page says, until in read the
following and realised that according to Bertrand Russell there was no
point in being a follower of Bertrand Russell:
"That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they
were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves
and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms;
that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve
an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of: the ages, all the
devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius,
are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the
whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the
debris of a universe in ruins-all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are
yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to
stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm
foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be
safely built." (Russell B., "A Free Man's Worship", in "Mysticism and
Logic: And Other Essays", 1949, pp47-48)
>SJ>That atheists like Susan persist however in doing so, is to my mind good
>>evidence that deep down the atheists *know* there really is a God, . . .
>
>an example of the breathtaking arrogance of some theists
>
>>The sort of atheist who would really impress me would be one whose life
>>was consistent with his/her creed. Atheists who rage against their fellow
>>human beings (who on the atheists' own premises are just evolved apes
>>with minds that are ultimately chemical reactions), for not obeying capital
>>`T' Truth, are in my book *deeply* and *absurdly* inconsistent!
SB>:-) we are a social species and we evolved to be altruistic. People who
>behave in uncompassionate and unaltruistic ways are being "unnatural."
This only proves my point. Since 90% of the public believe in God and only
10% don't, it is the *atheists* who are being "unnatural"!
SB>Also true information is important to survival. In medieval times it was thought
>that disease was caused by sin.
I am sceptical of these blanket claims of what people believed "In medieval
times". Many of these claims (eg. that people believed the Earth was flat,
and Galileo was persecuted by the Church, etc.) have turned out to be
either false or greatly exaggerated.
SB>They were wrong.
Susan is getting ultimate and proximate causes mixed up. That disease might
be proximally caused by germs, does not preclude that it could also be
ultimately caused by sin. AIDS is predominantly a disease of homosexual
and heterosexual promiscuity, which the Bible says is sinful.
SB>Nasty old materialistic
>science has introduced the idea of the germ theory of disease and developed
>the antibiotics to kill the germs.
When the "germ theory of disease and developed" there was no such thing as
"materialistic science". Two of the pioneers of "the germ theory of disease",
namely Pasteur and Lister were in fact *Christians*!
SB>I'm sure design theory will produce even
>more useful stuff--once a theory of design is formulated.
That ia indeed the necessary first step!
>>SB>What I oppose is deliberate, willful, rapacious ignorance.
>>
>>See above. I assume Susan is speaking specifically of "anti-evolutionists"
>>here. If so, is Susan claiming that *all* "anti-evolutionists" are guilty of
>>"deliberate, willful, rapacious ignorance"?
>
>See above. I make a distinction between the anti-evolutionists who know the
>truth and lie, and the anti-evolutionists who believe them. I am against
>rapacious ignorance where ever I find it. Religionists who wish to protect
>their mythology from reality are not exempt, but they aren't unique either.
See above again! I will await details of Susan's exhaustive survey of all
"anti-evolutionists" on Earth and her criteria for detecting which ones
"know the truth and lie" and which ones don't.
>SJ>>If that is the case, why does she not think that at least some of them might
>>just be simply *mistaken*? Why does Susan assume that to not believe in
>>"evolution" is a *moral* error, instead of just an intellectual error?
>
>Cuvier was simply mistaken, for lack of information. Some people I discuss
>this subject with simply don't know enough science. Others are duped by the
>people who do know enough science but lie. (For example, Henry Morris
>understands thermodynamics very well and chooses to lie?
See above re Ratzsch. While I hold no brief for "Henry Morris", the *real*
problem is that Susan and her ilk don't take the time to understand what
Morris is really saying about "thermodynamics".
SB>I'm pretty sure
>Phil Johnson falls in the same category. He's not ignorant of evolution as
>his critics claim. He understands it very well and chooses to misrepresent it.)
Since those "critics" who claim that Johnson is ignorant of evolution are
on Susan's own side, this shows how arbitrary and confused evolutionists
really are in their criticisms of him. They are so confused in their own
understanding of evolution and so addicted to defending their theory by
personal attacks instead of rational arguments that they cannot even agree
on whether their critics understand the theory and are making valid
criticisms or not!
The problem for Susan and her ilk is that Phil Johnson does indeed
understand evolution very well and what's more he accurately *represents*
it. Susan might not realise this but Phil Johnson has personally debated
leading evolutionists including Gould, Eldredge, Futuyma, Provine, Ruse
and Eugenie Scott. He is actually a personal friend of the Provine and
Ruse. Apart from a couple of minor errors in his first book, "Darwin on
Trial", none of these leading evolutionists have shown (or even claimed)
that Johnson misrepresents evolution.
Indeed judging from my personal experience with evolutionists on this
Reflector, the real problem is that many evolutionists themselves do not
really understand their own theory in order for them judge what is a
misrepresentation of evolution. So confused are evolutionists these days,
and so addicted are they to personal attacks in the place of rational
arguments, that often what evolutionists *think* are misrepresentation of
evolution by creationists is in fact what evolutionary theory itself claims!
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------