Hi all (Stephen),
SJ>> As this is AFAIK the first time I have seen a post from Troy, a
welcome to
the Reflector to him. <<
Thanks, but I've been subscribed to the reflector for almost two years (and
this my second time). I don't blame you for not knowing this however since
I don't contribute very frequently.
SJ>> I gather from his post, and from his home page·that Troy is an
evolutionist. <<
I accept evolution (common descent with modification via, largely though
not exclusively, natural selection) as being the best scientific explanation
for the empirical evidence of which I am familiar.
SJ>> But maybe Troy can tell us a bit more about himself and what exactly
his position on the creation-evolution spectrum is? <<
Why is this important? Do you need to know where I fall in the spectrum so
that you can know whether or not to listen to what I say? I suspect that
the usual motive behind this sort of question from creationists is to
determine whether I should be theologically corrected (if I claim to be a
theistic evolutionist), or ignored as a pawn of the Devil (if I claim to be
an agnostic/atheist evolutionist).
TB>> Another way in which anti-evolutionists abuse their quote mining
tactic, <<
SJ>> It's interesting how evolutionists, instead of being relaxed about
their theory, knowing that if it is true, it will always win through, feel a
need to protect it, so that it is effectively immune from challenge. <<
If the debate were strictly a scientific one amongst scientists AND the
scientifically literate, then we could be "relaxed" about the future of
evolutionary theory. Unfortunately the actual debate is as much to do with
politics and religion as it is with science. Even more unfortunately many
if not most people (in the US at least) are not what I would call
scientifically literate (no doubt I will be attacked as some sort of elitist
for saying this), nor is science particularly high on many peoples list of
priorities. As for the claim of evolutionists making evolution immune from
challenge, this is little more than demagoguery that doesn't warrant a
response.
SJ>> Thus if an "anti-evolutionist" quotes from evolutionist writers who
are expressing some problems with or doubts about the theory, then that is
"abuse" and "quote mining"! <<
It is not the mere quoting of someone that is the problem. It is the
quoting is out of context (textual or historical), and/or the leaving out
of pertinent information about the source of the quote (such as their
holding to bizarre or minority views). In this particular case, given
Hoyle's criticism of not only natural selection but also much of the
evidence for common descent, I donât think it would be fair to characterize
him, if that is Stephan's intent, as an "evolutionist writer". The subtitle
to his book _Evolution from Space_ is after all _A Theory of Cosmic
Creationism_.
TB>> is to quote from scientists who either hold a minority view (often a
tiny minority), or sometimes from a scientist whose views are down right
nutty <<
SJ>> This does happen, but comparatively rarely. Most of the quotes in
creationists literature that I have seen are is from prominent
evolutionists, like Stephen Jay Gould for example. <<
And I have found that a significant number (practically all) of these are
taken out of historical or textual context in one way or another.
That scientists talk about "problems" with some particular hypothesis or
theory is hardly surprising or problematic in any way. It is big part of
their "job". They often refer to problems and usually then to possible
solutions to said problems that can (hopefully) be tested against the
available evidence. Anti-evolutionists frequently quote the statement of
the problems leaving out the suggested solutions that often follow them.
TB>> and present them as if the views they represent are of equal weight to
the consensus view held by the vast majority of scientists. <<
SJ>> Maybe Troy can enlighten us all on what exactly this "consensus view
held by the vast majority of scientists" is? <<
Anyone serious about wanting to know what the consensus is within the
scientific community could easily find out by consulting the relevant
literature. It is hardly a secret. Which brings us to another tactic used
by anti-evolutionists. They exaggerate minor disagreements amongst
scientists about various details of evolutionary theory into mutually
exclusive camps, and then to point to them and say, "see they can't even
decide what form of evolutionary theory is the correct one, they're probably
both wrong".
TB>> Often these fringe scientists do not even have directly relevant
backgrounds to the subject they are being quoted on. <<
SJ>> We have had this `priestly' argument before. Taken to its logical
conclusion this Reflector would have to shut down. And since "the vast
majority of scientists" are not evolutionary biologists, they would not be
entitled to express a view on evolution either. <<
As Stephen has taken great pains to point out, I am hardly in a position to
be arguing for credentialism, and I should hope that I made it clear in my
statement that I am not doing so. If anyone, besides Stephen, doesn't
understand my position on this I would be happy to elaborate.
SJ>> It would also rule out Troy commenting on evolution because on his web
page·it would appear that Troy himself is not even a scientist but "a
printer" whose "general science education...in public school was pretty
pathetic", and who had "never heard much of anything about evolution in
public school" but who had "read and watched TV documentaries on science,
nature, and history and absorbed a fair amount of information over the
years..." <<
I'm glad to see that Stephen is concentrating on "*the issues*" and
avoiding ad hominem attacks.
TB>> Moreover the actual views of these fringe scientists often clash not
only with mainstream science but also with those of the anti-evolutionists
who are quoting them as authorities. <<
SJ>> That these so-called "fringe scientists" are not creationists goes
without saying. There would be no point in quoting them if they were· <<
Though they often are anti-evolutionists or at least anti-Darwinian
(anti-evolutionists often conflate evolution with Darwin's mechanism and
thus see a critique of one as a critique of both). Others while they may
accept evolution, and even natural selection, are off in their own worlds
grinding an axe with regards to some particular subject.
Snelling>> "The foundations of the evolutionary edifice are hardly likely
to be shaken by a collection of quotes from the many scientists who are
biblical creationists." <<
The "foundations" of evolutionary theory are not going to be shaken by ANY
amount of argument by quotation regardless of who is quoted, because
scientific debates are not settled by how many disembodied quotes one can
rack up in a row for or against something.
How it is that anti-evolutionists think that listing quotations is a form
of rigorous intellectual argument is beyond me. No need to actually
understand the evidence or the theories, heck, no need to think at all.
Just read the disembodied quotes (and the anti-evolutionist spin put on
them) and you to can be expert enough to denounce the entire scientific
community as pack of incompetent fools.
SJ>> The issue is not whether these "fringe scientists" agree with
creationists on everything, but whether their critiques of evolution are
*true*. <<
My experience is that anti-evolutionists welcome just about ANY critique of
evolution regardless of its source. They then usually spin the critique as
if it carries equal weight to the consensus views of the experts in the
particular field.
Do I really have to comment on the logical implications of Stephen's
statements? Are we really to believe that all the acknowledged experts are
either lying or stupid, and that the guy to thinks bugs may be intelligent
space aliens has the killer critique that the experts couldnât or wouldn't
see?
SJ>> Hoyle is not just an "astronomer". <<
There is nothing "just" about being an astronomer.<s>
SJ>> He was a Cambridge mathematician and theoretical physicist who has
made major contributions to astrophysics. <<
I do not question that.
SJ>> And as a mathematician, Hoyle is fully qualified to analyse
Neo-Darwinism's mathematical arguments· <<
Being mathematically competent in and of itself no more qualifies him to
critique evolution than it would qualify a mathematically competent
biologist to critique Big Bang cosmology (something else I believe Hoyle
doesn't care for). While mathematics is certainly important to all sciences
it is not all there is.
>> ·which he did to devastating effect in his recently re-published book,
"The Mathematics of Evolution," where he independently worked out from
scratch the crucial mathematical arguments of Fisher, Haldane and Sewall
Wright (upon which much of Neo-Darwinism is based), and found major flaws in
their mathematics. <<
Again, the experts in the field were, and are, too stupid to see this, they
needed Hoyle to come along and straighten them out. Now he needs to work on
those silly entomologists who keep insisting that bugs really are from earth
and aren't as smart as people.
TB>> However what anti-evolutionists do not explain to their audiences is
why A) this astronomers views should carry any particular weight in a
discussion about biology and/or paleontology, or B) exactly what Hoyle's
alternative explanation for the history of life is. <<
SJ>> Maybe Troy should first explain why, on the basis of his own argument,
his "views should carry any particular weight in a discussion about biology
and/or paleontology"? <<
A) The above question is clearly based on a false characterization of my
argument.
B) I am not claiming expert status for my opinions.
C) I am not claiming that virtually the entire scientific community is
wrong. Those that do I think necessarily carry a heavier burden of evidence
for their claims.
SJ>> If we can't listen to an eminent Cambridge mathematician who has made
the study of evolution his private specialty, why should we listen to "a
painter" whose "general science education...in public school was pretty
pathetic" and whose science education appears to have been mainly from
having "read and watched TV documentaries on science, nature, and history
and absorbed a fair amount of information over the years..."? <<
Again, I'm glad Stephan is avoiding ad hominem attacks.
TB>> Regarding A), the anti-evolutionists penchant for quoting him (and
others like him) is really little more an attempt at argument from
authority. The idea being that these are respected scientists with PhD's so
what they say on any area of science must be important. <<
SJ>> Sounds to me like Troy is giving a pretty good rendition of the
"argument from authority" himself! <<
If anyone besides Stephen believes that I am doing this I would be more
than happy to clarify my position for them.
TB>> Quotations of Hoyle given by anti-evolutionists are often prefaced by
referring to him as "respected scientist", or "famous astronomer", in order
to further build up his supposed authority in the eyes of their audience. <<
SJ>> Creationist books are mainly written for ordinary people who may not
know who Hoyle is. But I agree that creationists should be sparing with
their adjectives. On my own quote page I simply state what his name and
position is (or was), e.g. "(Hoyle, Fred [former Professor of Astronomy,
Cambridge University], "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn
Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, p.10)".
I'm glad you agree on this, however leaving out his "alternative" ideas is
in my opinion misleading by omission.
[Snip another ad hominem attack that I'm glad Stephen is avoiding now.]
TB>> Unless they can show that Hoyle has distinguished himself by
demonstrating his mastery of these fields (despite his lack of formal
background in them) and has been acknowledged by scientists in those fields
as having done so (and I submit that he has not), then anti-evolutionists
may just as well quote their own views on evolution as those of Hoyle. <<
SJ>> There is a catch-22 here, which Troy no doubt is well aware of. Since
evolutionary biology is dominated by philosophical materialist-naturalists·
<<
As opposed to other sciences where philosophical
immaterialist-supernaturalists dominate the thinking?
>>·no one these days could demonstrate his mastery of evolutionary biology
and be "acknowledged by scientists in those fields as having done so" unless
he himself was a naturalistic evolutionist like them! <<
More demagoguery.
[Lengthy quote snipped]
TB>> Regarding B), the other thing most anti-evolutionists do not usually
talk about is what Hoyle alternative views are. I submit that the reason
behind this omission is that they themselves consider them to be at the very
least unacceptable, and know that if they told their audiences about Hoyle's
ideas then all their building up of Hoyle as an authority would come
crashing down. <<
SJ>> Not really. Troy seems to think that "anti-evolutionists" are all
pretty stupid and don't know what Hoyle's other views are. <<
So it is your contention that the thousands that fill the pews at
creationist events every year are for the most part quite familiar with
Hoyle and his ideas? You know that isn't true Stephen. Most people have
never heard of him let alone what his odd-ball ideas are.
SJ>> All that "anti-evolutionists" are interested in is Hoyle's critique of
Darwinism. They probably couldn't care less about his views on other
things. <<
And people having knowledge of his other views wouldn't effect their
reception of his ideas on other things? Come on.
TB>> Anti-evolutionists know that their audience, usually made up of mostly
those who wish to have their pre-existing skepticism about evolution
confirmed, will find comfort in having a "respected scientist" quoted as
agreeing with their views. However they also know that if they tell their
audience that this "respected scientist" also believes that - insects might
come from outer space, and that they may be as intelligent as humans but are
hiding this fact from us, and that the changes in life of earth are the
result of a (natural) alien intelligence which has been raining mutation
causing viruses down on the earth throughout geologic time - that their
audience might not find the company to be quite so good. <<
SJ>> They might have read Hoyle & Wickramasinghe's, "Evolution from Space,"
for themselves and find out they are not saying that the above *was* the
case, but are speculating on it as a *possibility*. <<
Did you miss the "might" in my statement? Here is what Hoyle and
Wickramasinghe actually say in one of their books:
"The situation points to one of two possibilities. Either we are dealing
with an overt plan invented by an intelligence considerably higher than our
own, an intelligence which has foreseen all our chemicals an flamethrowers,
or the insects have already experienced selection pressure against
intelligences of at least our level in many other environments elsewhere in
the universe.
There is a curious variant of the first possibility. Could the insects
themselves be the intelligence much higher that our own? We are so
conditioned to thinking that the intelligence of a species can be
exemplified by an individual member that it is hard to asses a situation in
which each individual might show little intelligence, but in which the
combined aggregate of individuals might show much. Yet it is so in our own
brains, where no individual neuron can be said to display intelligence but
in which the aggregate of neurons constitutes exactly what we understand by
intelligence.
The static nature of insect societies goes against this thinking. If an
enormous intelligence inhabits the beehives of the world, we might expect to
see evidence of its presents. But this may again be to endow an opponent
with our own restless characteristics. Perhaps concealment is an essential
tactic. Perhaps the intelligence is static because it understands the
dictum of sagacious lawyers: `When your case is going well, say nothing.'"
(Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981, p.127)
>> Indeed, what about the Nobel prize-winning Darwinist Francis Crick,
co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, who proposed the theory (along with
eminent Darwinist Leslie Orgel), which had originally been suggested by
another eminent Darwinst, J.B.S. Haldane, in a journal edited by yet another
leading Darwinist, Carl Sagan, that life on Earth was seeded as bacteria by
aliens from another planet <<
[Snip quote]
Panspermia for the original seeding of life on earth is a respectable if
minority view, though Crick's speculations about space probes seeding the
earth are somewhat off-the-wall as well in my opinion. Hoyle however takes
it to a whole other level. In fact Hoyle criticized Crick for not going far
enough with his panspermia (Hoyle 1983 p. 158-160). Hoyle not only supports
the original seeding of life on earth but also believes that the
intelligence that first seeded the earth has been guiding the changes in
life forms through geologic time. A sort of genetic engineering via
diseases (particularly viral) that this intelligence continually rains down
on the earth.
SJ>> Well he *is* "Sir Fred Hoyle the famous British astronomer",
irrespective of whether some of his other ideas were "silly"! <<
Yes, but again pointing out the one without pointing out the other is
misleading by omission.
Bye
Troy Britain (Amateur Naturalist)
References:
Hoyle, Fred and Wickramasinghe, Chandra (1981) _Evolution From Space_ chap.
8 _Insects from Space?_
Hoyle, Fred (1983) _The Intelligent Universe: A New View of Creation and
Evolution_
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 03 2000 - 04:29:05 EDT