Reflectorites
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 09:56:02 -0700, Tedd Hadley wrote:
[...]
>SJ>...Maybe Tedd could tell us a bit about himself?
TH>I'm an ex-creationist, essentially, with mostly non-religious
>views. I don't have any specific academic credentials in
>evolution or biology, having my degree in CS.
Thanks to Tedd for this.
[...]
>>TH>So [Maynard Smith] doesn't believe its an insourmountable problem
>>>for evolution, either, eh? I guess he's using "problem"
>>>differently from the way you're using it.
>SJ>Not really. What Tedd is here trying (maybe unconsciously) is
>>the old evolutionist trick of attempting to shift the burden of
>>proof onto the critic. If the switch is not detected, it no
>>longer becomes the evolutionist's job to shown how sex originated
>>naturalistically, it becomes the critic's job to show how sex
>>could *not* have originated naturalistically!
TH>No switch needed. I took you're original claim as exactly that:
>sex could not have originated naturalistically. So you didn't
>mean that. Okay. What did you mean?
What "original claim" is Tedd talking about? I made no claim that "sex
could not have originated naturalistically".
My claim is that sex *may not have* originated fully naturalistically.
>SJ>I don't say that the origin of sex is "an *insurmountable* problem for
>>evolution". In fact I don't say that *anything* is an "*insurmountable*
>>problem for evolution." I don't rule out in advance that even
>>Darwinian `blind watchmaker' evolution, could be 100% true.
>>
>>Indeed, I have come to realise that even if fully naturalistic
>>Darwinian evolution was 100% true, it would not, by its own
>>admission, be able to predict (and therefore explain) from its
>>basic principles, the range of living things that we actually
>>have on Earth today:
TH>It would be able to predict a wide variety of living things
>(it is not clear to me how the fragment of the Popper quote
>has bearing on this-- maybe you'd like to flesh out his argument?)
>and even predict such things as sense organs, reproductive
>organs, etc., but, of course, all the tiny details wouldn't be
>known.
There is nothing to "flesh out". The simple fact is that Darwinism would
not be falsified if we found another Earth-like planet with no life, or only
primitive life on it, or even advanced life on it with no human-like life.
Therefore Darwinism cannot predict the origin and development of life on
Earth at *any* level, including the emergence of humans.
As I said to Bill Wald, a general theory of Progressive Mediate Creation
(PCM) can explain everything that Darwinism can explain and all the things
that Darwinism cannot explain. It is therefore the better scientific general
theory.
[...]
>SJ>So Darwinian evolution could not even definitely predict *anything*,
>>in particular.
TH>No, you've merely shown that evolution can't predict *some things*.
No. I quoted Popper saying that Darwinism would not be refuted even if we
found *no* species on another planet:
"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*)." (Popper K.,
"Unended Quest," 1982, p171. My emphasis).
>You can't logically go from that to concluding that evolution
>can't predict *anything*.
I note that Tedd (perhaps sensing danger ahead?) changes the key word
from the more specific "Darwinism" to the vaguer term "evolution", which
could mean just about anything.
But see above. Popper in effect said that *Darwinian* "evolution can't
predict *anything*".
I note also that Tedd ignores my crucial qualification "in particular"! I
would be interested in what things *in particular* Tedd believes that
Darwinian evolution can predict.
TH>I'm skipping most of your quotes. While interesting, I believe
>they often do not fairly represent the views of the persons
>quoted, they lack enough context to be sure of the view expressed,
>and they do not take into account changing views over time or
>new discoveries.
Tedd does not provide any *evidence* that the quotes I supplied: 1: "do
not fairly represent the views of the persons quoted"; 2. "lack enough
context to be sure of the view expressed"; and 3. "do not take into account
changing views over time or new discoveries".
TH>Now, if you want to refer to specific evidence
>or specific interpretations of evidence or specific lack of
>evidence in biology or evolution or make specific arguments
>related to your quoted material on this subject, I'll be happy
>to participate.
That is indeed what I have done in this thread, and in my posts generally!
If Tedd wants to "participate", or not, that is up to him.
[...]
>SJ>So, if there has been a change in that area since 1993-95, such that the
>>origin of sex is no longer "probably the most baffling topic in modern
>>evolutionary theory," I would appreciate Tedd citing the scientific
>>journal(s) article(s) which carried the news of that change.
TH>You've got a nice article on current discoveries and research
>on the topic right here:
> http://coldfusion.discover.com/output.cfm?ID=67
TH>I certainly wouldn't say the problem of the origin of sex is
>solved (at the very least, not until we have one theory rather
>than two or more), but I consider it very important to reference
>all the theories, evidence and research that it a part of this
>issue, rather than attempting to summarize it with subjective
>terms.
Good. So given that according to Tedd's own quote: "One of the
arguments currently dominating the competition" was admitted by its
champion, "Michael Rose" to be regarded by other "people" (presumably
meaning other experts in that field) as "possible, but...trivial." does Tedd
disagree with Susan that "Sex is not a problem at all for evolution"?
TH>Why not explain what specifically is baffling about the origin
>of sex to you and the implications that a failure to explain it
>have for your philosophy? Is it the difficulty in explaining
>meiosis or is there just no way that sex could arise in step-wise
>fashion, each step having a selective advantage?
Tedd forgets that it was not me who said it the origin of sex was "baffling" - it
was *Dawkins*!
What Tedd is again trying to do here is shift the burden of proof. He wants
me to say why *I* find it "baffling" so the problem can look like it is *my*
problem, not Darwinism's
As Leigh points out, this is how Darwinism achieved its dominance. Not so
much by supplying its own explanation, as by "eliminating competing
explanations":
"The primary problem with the [modern evolutionary] synthesis is that its
makers established natural selection as the director of adaptive evolution by
eliminating competing explanations, not by providing evidence that natural
selection among 'random' mutations could, or did, account for observed
adaptation...Mayr remarked, 'As these non-Darwinian explanations were
refuted during the synthesis ... natural selection automatically became the
universal explanation of evolutionary change (together with chance
factors).' Depriving the synthesis of plausible alternatives, which seemed
such a triumph, in fact sowed the seeds of its faults." (Leigh E.G., Jr, "The
modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher and creationism," Trends in Ecology and
Evolution, December 1999, p.495)
That's why this debate has never gone away and will never go away. The
critics don't feel they have been beaten fair and square. Until Darwinism
actually solves these "baffling" problems and wins the debate fair and
square, this debate will continue on as a `war of attrition'.
The more Darwinists continue to use the dubious tactics of trying to win by
marginalising its opponents by rhetorical and political stratagems, rather
than by the straighforward presentation of scientific evidence, the more
the growing band of critics will assume that the Darwinists have something
to hide.
In the past Darwinists got away with this because they appeared to have
the answers, they were not pushing their case among the general public,
and their opponents were in the main disorganised and had difficulty
gaining a hearing. But that is all changing.
The general public is now becoming increasingly aware that there are major
problems with Darwinism, the Darwinists are deeply divided among themselves,
and the critics are not all red-necked Bible thumpers. Moreover some of the
social implications of Darwinism (e.g. rape is adaptive, etc) are being made
public and are being rejected as absurd.
My prediction is that by the early 21st century the Darwinists will be unable
to continue preventing the critical discussion of Darwinism's many problems
in science classes.
When that happens, there will be a need for alternative explanations to gain
a hearing. Those alternative explanation will need to include both
Intelligent Design and the various Creation models (OEC & YEC).
When students are exposed to the problems of Darwinism, plus the evidence for
Intelligent Design and Creation, the majority IMHO will reject Darwinism and
opt for either ID ans/or one of the Creation models both. Then the damage that
Darwinism and Materialism has wrought on society for the last 140 years can
start to be repaired.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sixthly, he would be surprised to hear, that the mechanism of the watch
was no proof of contrivance, only a motive to induce the mind to think so:"
(Paley W., "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and
Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature,"
[1802], St. Thomas Press: Houston TX, 1972, reprint, p.5)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 14 2000 - 17:35:59 EDT