Reflectories
On Tue, 2 May 2000 00:14:24 -0700, Don Frack wrote:
As this is AFAIK the first message from Don, a welcome to the
Reflector to Don.
I note that on Troy's web page he calls Don "My best friend Don
Frack" so I presume Don is an evolutionist too? Troy says that Don
has "a masters in zoology" but not that Don has any academic
position (I must say that I have only skimmed a couple of Troy's
web pages, so I might have missed it). So maybe Don could tell us
a bit about himself and where he stands on the creation/evolution
spectrum?
DF>I didn't read a lot of the discussion on ad hominems, but I did find that
>several people whose input I greatly respect were ignoring Steve Jones
>rantings. I had just stopped bothering, but hadn't filtered him out.
As I have said many times, I fully support those who, like Don,
consider that my posts are just "rantings" and decide to filter
them out.
Mind you, Don at the bottom of his post says "End rant" so it he
seems to consider that his own post is just "rantings" too?
DF>Steve's
>just written a response to Troy Britain, in which he attacks Troy and
>ridicules his background.
I neither attacked Troy nor ridiculed his background. I simply
quoted what Troy himself had written about himself on his own web
page:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/troybritain/troy.htm
[...]
Unfortunately the general science education I got in public school
was pretty pathetic, and I never heard much of anything about
evolution in public school. However I read and watched TV
documentaries on science, nature, and history and absorbed a fair
amount of information over the years but I never got really serious
about it, and pretty much took evolution for granted.
[...]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My point was that if Troy ruled Fred Hoyle out as not being
competent to comment on evolution, then by his own criteria, Troy
would not be competent to comment on evolution either.
I was not saying that Troy was not competent, but was pointing
out that Troy, *by his own criteria*, was in effect saying that
he himself was not competent.
DF>It is THE most mean-spirited trash I've seen him
>post yet (perhaps I haven't been paying close enough attention!).
It is interesting how Don's own prejudice colours what he sees. All I
did was quote back to Troy what he himself wrote about himself on
his own web page! Yet according to Don, those very same words
become, by a mysterious process of transformation through me,
a creationist, "the most mean-spirited trash"!
DF>I note
>below the comments Steve gleans from Troy's web site. Steve states:
>SJ>And since "the vast majority of scientists" are not evolutionary
>>biologists, they would not be entitled to express a view on evolution
>>either.
>>
>>It would also rule out Troy commenting on evolution because on
>>his web page:
>>http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/troybritain/troy.htm, 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..."
DF>Troy's point was one of *competence*, and he made clear what he meant:
Actually it wasn't *simply* "one of competence". It was an attempt
to *smear* Hoyle as a person so that no one would take any notice
of what he said.
First, Troy implied that Hoyle was a "fringe scientist" and "nutty":
"Another way in which anti-evolutionists abuse their quote mining
tactic, 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, and present them as if the views they
represent are of equal weight to the consensus view held by the
vast majority of scientists. Often these fringe scientists do not even
have directly relevant backgrounds to the subject they are being
quoted on. 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. Fredrick
Hoyle is a perfect example of this."
Second, Troy twice referred to Hoyle as not having the right
"background":
"Often these fringe scientists do not even have directly relevant
backgrounds to the subject they are being quoted on...." and "Unless
they can show that Hoyle has distinguished himself by demonstrating
his mastery of these fields (despite his lack of formal background
in them)".
Third, Troy tried to smear Hoyle by referring to his "alternative
views":
"...the other thing most anti-evolutionists do not usually talk about
is what Hoyle alternative views are. ...if they told their audiences
about Hoyle's ideas then all their building up of Hoyle as an
authority would come crashing down. ...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."
Troy then finished off his smear of Hoyle by quoting Gish as
allegedly saying that "Hoyle's alternative views" were "silly":
"Case in point, I was personally present when an acquaintance of
mine asked Duane Gish about Hoyle's alternative views...Gish's
response to us was something to the effect that Hoyle's ideas were
"silly".
Continuing with Don's excerpt from Troy's post...
>TB>The fact that Hoyle is an astronomer certainly does not disqualify
>>him from having an opinion on other areas of science, nor does it
>>disqualify him from possibly making valuable contributions to them.
>>There have been many scientists (and even non-scientists) who have
>>done so in the past. On the other hand the fact that he has a PhD and
>>is noted in astronomy does not make him any better qualified to do so
>>than any other non-biologist/paleontologist to comment on these fields.
>>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.
DF>An individual's formal background does not determine competence, knowledge
>of the subject material does.
This might have been true once, but it is not true any longer. If one
does not have a "formal background" (i.e. at least a Ph.D in the
relevant discipline), one would never be "acknowledged by
scientists in those fields as" having distinguished himself by
demonstrating his mastery of these fields."
I am studying part-time for a BSc in Biology, but I am under no
illusions that completing it that would make me even the slightest
bit "competent" in the eyes of evolutionary biologists.
And anyway, how does Troy or Don know that Hoyle does not have
the requisite "knowledge of the subject material"?
DF>I have only seen anti-evolutionists confuse
>competence with eye-rolling dismissal of "elitism", "priesthoods", etc.,
>etc.
Since, as Troy correctly states, "competence" within evolutionary
biology, is *defined* these days as being "acknowledged by
scientists in those fields", it is in effect "elitism" and a scientific
"priesthood". It wouldn't matter how competent Hoyle was by any
objective standard. The final arbiter of his "competence" would be
the very evolutionistswhose theory he is criticising!
DF>My very first confrontation years ago over this was an unexpected
>attack when I suggested someone should be competent in a field for his
>opinion to be worthwhile.
And "competent" to Don no doubt means agreeing with him about the fact of
evolution?
DF>I was accused of refusing anyone outside the
>"priesthood" from commenting. What, do these guys attend classes to memorize
>the knee-jerk response?
I presume from this that Don is, or was, a member of this "priesthood"?
DF>To find out if this particular "printer" has "competence", I add to Steve's
>plugging of Troy's web site at another page.
I repeat that I was not questioning Troy's "competence". I was
defending Hoyle against Troy's charge that Hoyle was not qualified
to comment on evolution, by pointing out that on Troy's own criteria,
he would be similarly unqualified.
I repeat: I was not attacking Troy, I was defending Hoyle.
DF>Examine the following link to
>the personal library of this pathetically educated person:
>
>http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/troybritain/scilibx.htm
>
>How many of you would like to have this library?
I quickly counted about 49 pages at 9 books per page (I could have
miscounted). Make that 50 x 10 books = 500 books. I have about
460 creation/evolution books on my own growing partial list starting
at: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones/cebooksa.html. I also have at
least 50 C/E books not yet listed.
On Don's criteria, that should make me at least as competent as
Troy. But I won't hold my breath waiting for Don to acknowledge it!
DF>Note that Steve has visited this site, and quoted what he likes.
I only looked at Troy's site very briefly to see who he was. On the page in
question, as for competence all that I could see was:
"From then on I was hooked on the subject. I became determined not to let the
misinformed and/or dishonest claims of creationists to go unanswered. I began
reading scientific literature voraciously. I became a regular at the public
library, looking for everything I could on the subject of evolution and
creationism. For a couple years I sort of wandered on my own, reading
whatever I could find on both creationism and evolutionary biology (Kitcher,
Eldredge, Gould, Dawkins etc.)."
DF>Troy
>comments clearly on his association with biologists and other changes in his
>life on the same Steve quotes from page.
As for "association with biologists" all I could see was:
"...It was there I met my now my best friend Don Frack, who not
only had the (anti) creationism bug like I did, but also had a REAL
background in biology (a masters in zoology). Through him I
gained several biologist friends (mostly entomologists), and learned
a LOT more about biology, history of science, and of course (anti)
creationism."
Just knowing and being friends with biologists doesn't make one
competent. I have a friend who is a professional entomologist with
a Ph.D in zoology. I recently met him after many years and had a
discussion with him about evolution. While he knew more a lot
more about insects and zoology that I could ever hope to know, it
quickly transpired that I knew a lot more about *evolution* than he
did.
I hasten to add that I am not saying that Troy is not competent. I
personally judge competence in this debate on the quality of one's
arguments, not on one's qualifications.
DF>Troy may not have the formal background, but he has worked his ass off to
>become COMPETENT in the fields he's interested. I know, because I've given
>him advice, and helped him learn the ins-and-outs of doing research. He has
>done his own research for years now, and when he comes up against some topic
>he doesn't have information on, he finds books (which he STILL blames on me
>to his wife as "the demon made me buy it") or he goes home from that job as
>a "printer" and spends evenings at the Science library at UC Riverside. I
>don't know how many file drawers of articles he has now, but he often
>matches me at spending about $30-50 in photocopying per library trip we take
>together to UC Riverside, UCLA, and other libraries. Troy haunts to UCR
>Science library several times each month. He reads voraciously in the
>sciences, and is highly respected by our mutual friends - several of whom
>are professional biologists, all are trained in that field. That, my
>friends, is gaining competence the hard way.
Sounds like Troy and I have the same disease! :-)
I might add that Phillip E. Johnson has done exactly the same thing
as Troy, but `from the other side of the tracks'. Here is a Professor
of Law at a major university with a near genius IQ (he skipped his
final college year and was accepted into Harvard, and then later he
finished first in his class at the University of Chicago law school).
He has read an enormous amount of evolutionary literature, such
that he has held his own in one-on-one debates with Gould,
Eldredge, Provine and Futuyma, etc. Yet he is just dismissed by
evolutionists as a mere "lawyer".
DF>My exposure to Steve is that he likes to take soundbites from the Internet,
>or skim through current literature and comment ad nauseum. Occasionally, he
>even has something interesting to say, but the signal-to-noise ratio seems
>to be too low for some of us.
I regard such non-factual, ad hominem criticisms from evolutionists
as a sign that I must be doing *something* right!
To me they have about the same `party line' validity as a politician's
criticism of another politicians from an opposing political party.
But if I ever became an evolutionist, I am sure all the evolutionists
would fall over themselves saying how *clever* I suddenly had become.
They would point to all my books, and my going to the library on
almost a daily basis and making mountains of photocopies, etc, etc,
as evidence that I was "competent". I would no doubt be featured
on Talk.Origins as a "former creationist who saw the light", etc, etc.
I might still make many of the same criticisms of evolution, but that
wouldn't matter. What would matter was that I was now an *evolutionist*!
But I am more interested in the truth than in people thinking highly
of me.
DF>There seems something entirely proper about Steve arguing that people
>without competence in a field should have an equal voice.
Actually I wasn't arguing that at all. I was defending Fred Hoyle against
Troy's claim that "people without competence" (i.e. in the eyes of evolutionary
biologists) "should" *not* "have an equal voice"!
It is interesting (and revealing) how Don turns the argument around 180
degrees.
DF>End rant.
Indeed!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The origin of sugars, including ribose, seems readily explicable by the
prebiotic functioning of the formose reaction... In fact we are dealing here
with a complex network of reactions, producing sugars from pre-existing
sugars and formaldehyde.... There are two problems with this network that
should be mentioned. First, the sugars formed are rather unstable, so, if
they are to be present in significant amounts, this can only be in a steady
state of formation and decay. It is imperative, therefore, that the end
products of sugar decay be recycled to formaldehyde. Second, it is not at
all obvious how ribose, among the more than 40 sugars could have been
sufficiently prevalent under prebiotic conditions." (Maynard Smith J. &
Szathmary E., "The Major Transitions in Evolution," W.H. Freeman:
Oxford UK, 1995, pp.30-31).
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 03 2000 - 17:24:50 EDT