This thread has gone on for a while so this two-part response to Susan
will probably be my last post on it.
On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 13:43:00 -0600 (CST), Susan B wrote:
>>SB>Be glad to. There are "professional" creationists who know the truth and who
>>>misrepresent, lie and conceal.
>SJ>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?
SB>You look at their qualifications. Are they merely preachers or have they had
>some introduction to science? If they have some training in the
>sciences--creationists in the sciences tend to be engineers for some
>reason
What basis has Susan for that statement that "creationists in the sciences
tend to be engineers"? The only leading young-Earth creationist who is an
engineer that I am aware of is Henry Morris. Gish is a biochemist and
Parker is a biologist. Susan's own list below of "professional creationists"
does not include *one* engineer!
Besides, since when is engineering a science? My son has just graduated
with a Bachelor of Engineering and he doesn't consider himself a scientist
and nor does he have "Science" in the title of his degree.
Later on down in this same post Susan distinguishes a "scientist" from "an
engineer". So on her own criteria most of these "`professional' creationists"
who she claims "know the truth and who misrepresent, lie and conceal" are
not scientists and therefore could be simply mistaken about science.
SB>--and they tell you "evolution is an unproven theory" you know right
>away they are being dishonest.
How does Susan "know" they are they being "dishonest" and not just
mistaken? Does Susan possess some special insight into the hearts and
minds of people she doesn't even know personally?
And why does Susan (along with other evolutionists) need to claim that
opponents of evolution are "dishonest", ie. guilty of *moral* error rather
than simply mistaken (ie. guilty of intellectual error)?
SB>If they have even a passing acquaintance with
>science they know "proof" is a mathematical concept and has no place in
>science.
Is Susan saying that mathematical concepts have no place in science?
The online Webster's dictionary at gives as one definition of "proof":
"1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a
truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a
statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance
with principles of reasoning" (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary);
and of "prove":
"3 a : to establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or
logic) <prove a theorem> <the charges were never proved in court> b : to
demonstrate as having a particular quality or worth <the vaccine has been
proven effective after years of tests> <proved herself a great actress>"
(http://www.m-w.com/cgibin/dictionary).
Both these definitions include reasoning from "evidence" and the second
one ("prove") even has a specific *scientific* example of "the vaccine has
been proven effective after years of tests".
And evolutionary scientists *do* use the concept of "proof" and "proven"
in respect of evolution:
"Thomson felt constrained to devote a considerable part of his work to
presentation of PROOFS of the truth of evolution. This would be a waste
of time now. Ample PROOF has been repeatedly presented and is available
to anyone who really wants to know the truth." (Simpson G.G., "The
Meaning of Evolution ", 1960, p4. Emphasis mine).
"THE evolution of the organic world, from the synthesis of the first
complex molecules endowed with the faculty of reproducing their kind to
the most advanced type of life, must have taken place roughly within the
past two billion years on our planet. All the facts of biology, geology,
paleontology, biochemistry and radiology not only agree with this
statement but actually PROVE it. Evolution of the animal and plant world
is considered by all those entitled to judgment to be a fact for which no
further PROOF is needed." (Goldschmidt R.B., "Evolution, as Viewed by
One Geneticist," American Scientist, Vol. 40, January 1952, p84. Emphasis
mine).
"...may I state for the record that I (along with all other Darwinian
pluralists) do not deny either the existence and central importance of
adaptation, or the production of adaptation by natural selection. Yes, eyes
are for seeing and feet are for moving. And, yes again, I know of no
scientific mechanism other than natural selection with the PROVEN power
to build structures of such eminently workable design." (Gould S.J.,
"Darwinian Fundamentalism", New York Review of Books, June 12, 1997.
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWfeatdisplay.cgi?19970612 34F@p3.
Emphasis mine)
SB>In science there is only evidence. They also are aware that in
>science a theory is not a "wild-assed guess" but a system of thought. To a
>lay person a theory is a guess, an idea, a speculation. To a scientist those
>things are usually referred to as "hypothesis." A theory is a hypothesis
>with a huge amount of supporting evidence. A real scientist (like an
>engineer) also knows that something like the fact of nuclear physics can
>also have a Theory of Nuclear Physics which organizes all that is known
>about nuclear physics and that that is what is referred to when one speaks
>of "The Theory of Evolution."
Susan contradicts herself. She says "In science there is only evidence" and
then immediately adds "system of thought", "theory", "hypothesis", and
"fact"!
And note that Susan also distinguishes a "scientist" from "an engineer",
which makes her claim that "creationists in the sciences tend to be
engineers" self-contradictory.
It also weakens Susan's claim that these "creationists" who "tend to be
engineers" must be being "dishonest" because they "have some training in
the sciences".
>SJ>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>These are a few professional creationists listed on the "Revolution Against
>Evolution" website:
>Dr. Erich von Fange is a retired professor from Concordia College
>John Woodmorappe has an MA in Geology, a BA in Geology, and a BA in Biology.
>Dr. John Morris is a geologist
>Dr. Steven Austin is a geologist
>Dr. Don DeYoung is a professor of Physics at Grace College
>Dr. Walter Lammerts was the scientist who bred the world-renouned Queen
>Elizabeth rose.
Is Susan claiming that these "professional creationists" in particular
"definitely `know the truth' and yet `misrepresent, lie and conceal'"?
If so, *how* exactly does Susan know they are not just "deluded or
honestly mistaken"?
>>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.
>SJ>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".
SB>I haven't read *all* professional creationists, but I've read a lot of them.
>There's a definite trend
So Susan having previously claimed (or at least implied) that "Most of the
creationists fall into the latter category", i.e. "who ignore what's out there,
misrepresent what's out there or refuse to accept what's out there", now
she is claiming that only those she has read are in that category?
If so, then it seems that Susan's reading of a creationist is the decisive
factor!
>>SB>American science education is
>>>abysmal. Few Europeans could be fooled by a transparent lie like "evolution
>>>violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
>SJ>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":
SB>oh, really? Perhaps they are so used to quoting evolutionists out of
>context, they make the mistake of quoting *themselves* out of context. I've
>debated a lot of creationists who try to tell me that entropy can *never*
>decrease because they have read Morris's "Creation Science" where he makes
>that claim. Morris who, I believe, has training as an engineer, knows that
>entropy can decrease locally
That some creationists in the heat of debate might have misunderstood what Morris
said in about the second law of thermodynamics and/or that Susan might have
understood what the creationists where saying, is of course entirely possible.
I presume Susan means Morris & Parker's "What is Creation Science?"? If so
the index has the following pages where they discuss "entropy":
---------------------------------------------------------------------
325
[...]
Entropy principle
Conflict with evolution, 4-6, 199,
202, 218-219
Crystal formation, 209, 219
Definition, 199
Universal applicability, 201-202
See also: Second Law; Probability
[...]
(Morris H.M. & Parker G.E., "What is Creation Science?", 1987, p325)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe Susan can check her copy and point out where they say that "entropy
can *never* decrease"?
But Susan has a problem early on because on page 5 Morris & Parker say:
"Entropy can be forced to decrease in an open system, if enough organizing
energy and information are applied to it from outside the system. This
externally introduced complexity would have to be adequate to overcome
the normal internal increase in entropy when raw energy is added from the
outside." (Morris H.M. & Parker G.E., "What is Creation Science?", 1987,
p5)
misunderstanding what her opponent is saying, I would assume that Susan
has simply misunderstood what the creationists she has debated with have
said.
>SJ>"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>You should read this site it's a disection of a talk given by Duane Gish:
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-rutgers/gish-draft.txt
>
>this is a comment on Gish's pamphlet handed out at the talk:
>
>" For example, the pamphlet states, "The Second Law of
>Thermodynamics states that there is a general tendency of all observed
>systems to go from order to disorder. . . A fundamental law of physics says
>that natural systems go from order to disorder; evolutionists say that these
>same systems will go from disorder to order." This is, of course, complete
>nonsense. Among other problems with this argument, the Second Law of
>Thermodynamics only applies to systems that are isolated and in thermal
>equilibrium. Living systems are not isolated systems in thermal equilibrium.
> Therefore, the systems that an evolutionary scientist talks about are not
>the same systems that the Second Law of Thermodynamics talks about. The
>author sums up with the outrageous claim that the "evolutionary hypothesis. .
>. contradicts one of the most well-established laws of science (the Second
>Law of Thermodynamics)." The fact that the pamphlet's creationist author
>knows nothing about thermodynamics doesn't keep him from trying to use it as
>evidence for the cause of creationism."
Despite it being a summary by someone obviously not sympathetic to Gish,
there is enough in this quote to recognise it as an example of what Ratzsch
is pointing out:
"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 self-developed 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)
Note the words that Gish uses: "general tendency", "fundamental law". In
fact Gish says "the systems that an evolutionary scientist talks about are not
the same systems that the Second Law of Thermodynamics talks about".
Susan (along with other evolutionists) needs to pay careful attention to
what her creationist opponents *actually* say, not what she *thinks* they
say.
[...]
>>SB>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.
[...]
>SJ>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!
SB>I'm saying all the ones I've read. I said *most* because I'm assuming that
>it's possible there is a creationist that is honest.
Susan still needs to provide the criteria by which she determines which
creationists are "honest" and which ones are "dishonest".
At the moment the criteria seems to be if Susan reads their writings,
because she says that "all the ones" she has "read" are dishonest!
[...]
>>>SJ>If Susan is not opposing God, she is doing a *very* good imitation of it!
>>>
>>SB>I oppose creationists. That's different from opposing God. Though most
>>>creationists get that confused.
>SJ>While to "oppose creationists" is indeed "different from opposing God", I
>>doubt that God sees it that way!
SB>you know this for a fact?
Susan needs to read *carefully* what I write. I said "I doubt..."
[continued in 2/2]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"For example, the assertion that populations of organisms can change in
their genetic composition from one generation to another (i.e., evolve) is
undisputed, even by the creationists. To say without qualification that "all
present life has evolved from more primitive forms" is unscientific because
such a statement is an absolute. A scientifically acceptable restatement is
that `scientists have found a great deal of evidence from many sources
which they have interpreted to be consistent with the theory that all present
life has evolved from more primitive forms.'" (Stansfield W.D., "The
Science of Evolution", [1977], Macmillan: New York NY, 1983, Eighth
Printing, p9)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------