Reflectorites
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:07:08 -0000, Richard Wein wrote:
[continued]
[...]
>>>>RW>I consider creationism and ID to be pseudoscience, in a similar league to
>>>>astrology, dowsing and Atlantis.
>>>SJ>....does Richard make any distinction between Young-Earth
>>>>Creationism and old-Earth creationist positions such as Progressive
>>>>Creation?
>>RW>The only OEC position that I have any familiarity with is that of Hugh Ross,
>>>and I do consider that to be pseudoscience. I haven't yet come across an
>>>explanation of the progressive creationist position, so I won't comment on
>>>that.
>SJ>Isn't it a bit premature for Richard to declare *all* "creationism and ID
>>to be pseudoscience" when he is familiar with only *one* progressive
>>creationist?
RW>I didn't know that Hugh Ross called himself a "progressive creationist".
To be fair to Richard, Ross is widely regarded as a "progressive creationist,"
and he accepts that title of himself in the following, although he tends to
call himself more specifically a "day-age proponent" and an "old-earth
creationist":
"...Morris calls progressive creationism (including the belief that God
instantly performs miracles of creation on many different occasions over
long time periods) "a compromise with the enemy." In fact, he labels
progressive creationism with its day-age theory the worst of all options, for
it "compounds the offense [of evolutionism] by making God have to
redirect and recharge everything at intervals." ... This leads to a
tremendous irony. Such creationists brand day-age proponents, like myself,
who deny any significant biological evolution over time scales long or
short, as evolutionists while they themselves seem to concede substantial
biological evolution over very short time scales..." (Ross H.N., "Creation
and Time", 1994, p83).
RW>But, to answer your question: you used the word *all*, not me. I was,
>admittedly, generalizing.
What sort of point is this? Richard said: "I consider creationism and ID
to be pseudoscience, in a similar league to astrology, dowsing and
Atlantis". Richard gave no limitation on "creationism" so I took it
(and I am sure evrybody else did) as meaning *all* creationists.
So now if Richard does not mean that *all* "creationism and ID
to be pseudoscience, in a similar league to astrology, dowsing and
Atlantis", then perhaps he will state *which* "creationism and ID"
he regards as "pseudoscience" and which he doesn't?
>SJ>And what in particular did Richard consider to be pseudoscience in Hugh
>>Ross' writings?
RW>That's quite a big subject. For now let me just illustrate with one crass
>error that he's made. I'll post separately a copy of a message I sent to
>Hugh Ross's organization (Reasons To Believe), pointing out an error in one
>of his articles on the web. I never received any response.
So Richard thinks that "one crass error" invalidates one's whole position as
pseudoscience?
Or does think (as another evolutionist on this Reflector did also) that if a
busy scientist does not reply to his posts, then that make his whole position
pseudoscience?
>>>SJ>And while we are at it, maybe Richard can also clarify exactly what he
>>>>means by " pseudoscience"? What is the criteria he uses for demarcating
>>>>true science from pseudoscience?
>>RW>One criterion is the basing of theories on empirical evidence. Of
>>course, there's room for a certain amount of speculation in science, but that
>>should be labelled as such and there must be a kernel of empirical evidence.
>SJ>So if creationism or ID bases its theories on empirical evidence then that
>>is science according to Richard?
RW>If the evidence is sound and the conclusions follow from the evidence, yes.
So if a scientist either: 1) bases his theory on unsound evidence or 2)
his conclusions don't follow from the evidence, then does that make his
whole position pseudoscience, according to Richard?
>>RW>Another criterion is the rejection of invalid arguments -- in
>>pseudoscience such as creationism, invalid arguments are allowed to stand long after
>>they have been shown to be invalid.
>SJ>So if a scientist tenaciously hangs on to his theory for many years,
>>despite the majority of the scientific community rejecting it as invalid (as for
>>example Wegener in his theory of continental drift), then presumably,
>>according to Richard's demarcation criterion, that is pseudoscience?
RW>Did the scientific community *show* that the theory was invalid or just
>reject it because they weren't convinced by it? I'm talking about arguments
>that are *provably* invalid, i.e. contain fatal logical errors.
So unless a scientific theory "contains fatal logical errors", then it is
*real* science and not pseudoscience, according to Richard?
>RW>And if creationists do eventually modify their invalid arguments (as for
>>example the ICR did regarding the Paluxy River tracks), then presumably,
>>according to Richard's demarcation criterion, that is scientific?
RW>Yes, providing the arguments they have left after discarding all the invalid
>ones are based on sound empirical evidence.
So then does is the ICR exempt from Richard's statement that: "I consider
creationism and ID to be pseudoscience, in a similar league to astrology,
dowsing and Atlantis"?
>>RW>As an example I would mention the ridiculous
>>>argument that the theory of evolution is incompatible with the second law
>>>of thermodynamics.
>SJ>Maybe Richard isn't aware that, as the philosopher Del Ratzsch (who has
>>made an in-depth study of young-Earth creationist writings), pointed out,
>>this is a popular evolutionist misunderstanding of creationist theory:
>>
>>"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. ... when claiming that the Second Law flatly precludes
>>evolution, major creationists almost invariably have in mind evolution in the
>>overall cosmic, "evolution model" sense.... 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, pp.91-92)
RW>Well, I haven't read Morris's writings on the subject and I don't know what
>other "major" creationists Ratzsch is referring to. But I have read what
>many YEC web sites have to say about the second law, ...
Doesn't Richard think it is important that before he writes off
"creationism ...to be pseudoscience, in a similar league to
astrology, dowsing and Atlantis" that he should actually read the
major creationists like Henry Morris and Duane Gish's *books*?
RW>...and most (if
>not all) mention biological evolution in this context. (They may mention the
>origin of the universe too.) Here are some quotes from creationist sites.
>I'm sure I could find many more like this:
>
>"The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a
>natural, mechanistic process: (1) by which the physical universe could have
>formed spontaneously from nothing, and (2) by which biological life could
>have arisen and diversified (also spontaneously) from a non-living,
>inanimate world. (Both postulates form essential planks in the platform of
>evolutionary theory in general.)" (http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.htm)
This is a good example of what Ratszch means by: "evolution in the
overall cosmic, "evolution model" sense..."
BTW I would ask David Bowman to hold off jumping in here claiming I have
not answered his post on tbe second law of thermodynamics. I will answer
his post in chronological order.
RW>"These indications add emphasis to a principle already alluded to several
>times, namely, that deterioration or degeneration rather than developmental
>evolution is the universal law of biology."
>(http://www.csinfo.org/Evolution_Entropy.htm)
This extract is too brief to know what it means. It does not even mention
"the second law of thermodynamics".
RW>"What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid
>which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is
>a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life,
>you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the
>thing grow - increasing its order [temporarily]." Arthur E. Wilder-Smith
>(http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html)
This is too brief also. It does not mention "the second law of
thermodynamics".
RW>"3. After the first cell, mutation/selection do not appear to be adequate
>candidates for the ordered mechanism required to locally overcome the
>effects of the Second Law in an open system. Information and order, form,
>body, arrangement and complexity do not arise spontaneously, but are
>spontaneously and naturally lost."
>(http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3810.asp)
This does mention the "Second Law". But all it is saying is that random
mutation and natural selection are inadequate to "locally overcome the effects
of the Second Law". This is equivalent to saying that random mutation and
natural selection are inadequate to build life's complex designs.
RW>Incidentally, if Morris really says that in the evolutionist view "the
>entire cosmos is itself in a process of increasing overall order", then he's
>attacking an absurd straw man.
Not really. Leading evolutionists like Neo-Darwinism's co-founder Julian
Huxley have made such claims:
"All reality, in fact, is evolution, in the perfectly proper sense that it is a one-
way process in time, unitary; continuous; irreversible; self-transforming; and
generating variety and novelty during its transformations." (Huxley J.,
"Evolution in Action," 1963, p.12)
RW>I was also quite amused to see that, according to one of the web pages above
>(http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html), Henry
>Morris is proposing his own version of the second law!
>
>"Dr. Henry Morris has proposed A COMPREHENSIVE DEFINITION OF THE 2ND LAW OF
>THERMODYNAMICS in accordance with this concept:
>
>"In any ordered system, open or closed, there exists a tendency for that
>system to decay to a state of disorder, which tendency can only be suspended
>or reversed by an external source of ordering energy directed by an
>informational program and transformed through an ingestion-storage-converter
>mechanism into the specific work required to build up the complex structure
>of that system.
I personally do not agree with creationists proposing their own definitions of
the laws of physics. I believe it is important for creationists to critique,
where necessary the definitions used by mainstream science.
RW>If either the information program or the converter mechanism is not
>available to that 'open' system, it will not increase in order, no matter
>how much external energy surrounds it. The system will decay in accordance
>with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
>
>"[Henry M. Morris, "Entropy and Open Systems," Acts and Facts, Vol. 5 (P.O.
>Box 2667, El Cajon, California 92021: Institute for Creation Research,
>October 1976).]"
This is in line with what the leading evolutionist (and another of neo-
Darwinism's co-founders) said:
"We have repeatedly emphasized the fundamental problems posed for the
biologist by the fact of life's complex organization. We have seen that
organization requires work for its maintenance and that the universal quest for
food is in part to provide the energy needed for this work. But the simple
expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in
a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization.
The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires
information on how to proceed." (Simpson G.G. & Beck W.S., "Life: An
Introduction To Biology," 1965, p.466)
RW>Making up your own version of well-established laws of physics is about the
>clearest sign of pseudoscience that you could hope to see. ;-)
Not really. Where does Richard think scientists get their "well-established laws
of physics" from? Since they are not written in the stars or on atoms, and
science has no Pope, *someone* has to make up their own version of them. A quick
glance at a number of physics books will reveal that the second law of thermodynamics
in particular has many different definitions. In fact one physics textbook that I
have says there is a number of "different statements of it that" are "completely
equivalent":
"We have seen several aspects of the second law of thermodynamics; and the
different statements of it that we have discussed can be shown to be completely
equivalent." (Giancoli D.C., "Physics: Principles with Applications," 1991,
p.400).
This is not to say that Morris' definition *is* equivalent, but it cannot be
ruled out as "pseudoscience" just because he proposed it.
>SJ>And even if we grant Richard's point arguendo, it only applies to *young-
>>Earth* creationists, so maybe Richard could give examples of *old-Earth*
>>creationists making similar invalid arguments that are allowed to stand
>long after they have been shown to be invalid?
RW>Well, for brevity, allow me to recycle the argument of Hugh Ross which I
>mentioned above. I trust that 3 months will be enough to qualify as "long
>after".
So Richard thinks that all he has to do is send an email to a busy scientist
correcting him and if he doesn't respond in "3 months" then their whole
position is "pseudoscience"? Who does Richard think he is?
How does Richard know that Hugh Ross has even had the time to read it?
Or if he has read it, that he is not seriously considering it? Or if he has
considered it, that he has not rejected it for very good reasons? There is no
requirement in science that a scientist must respond to every critic of their
theories or their whole position be labelled "psuedoscience".
RW>By the way, I've noticed a number of invalid arguments in the comments you
>add to your digests of news articles. Perhaps when we've finished the
>current thread we can take a look at some of those.
If Richard has any criticisms of my comments he should make them at the
time. I am very busy with a Biology degree, two Internet mailing lists, a
job, a wife, and a house that is deteriorating according to the second law of
thermodynamics! I simply will not have the time to answer old points.
Indeed, the way things are going, I am not going to be able to answer all
Richard's points in this current multi-part thread, so I serve notice on
Richard that, as my previously announced policy on this Reflector before
his time, that I will probably terminate these threads after one or two
iteration.
[...]
BTW while we have been debating whether creationism is "pseudoscience"
Richard also said that: "I consider ... ID to be pseudoscience, in a similar
league to astrology, dowsing and Atlantis." Maybe Richard can also state
why he thinks ID is pseudoscience?
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And as Darwinists and neo-Darwinists have become ever more adept at
finding possible selective advantages for any trait one cares to mention,
explanation in terms of the all-powerful force of natural selection has come
more and more to resemble explanation in terms of the conscious design of
the omnipotent Creator." (Ho M-W. & Saunders P.T., eds., "Beyond Neo-
Darwinism: An Introduction to the New Evolutionary Paradigm,"
Academic Press: London, 1984)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 18:32:00 EST