Reflectorites
1. Here is a letter that Mike Behe sent to SCIENCE in response to an
article by Eugenie Scott which implied that he was a "creationist" (in the
YEC sense). I know that Behe specifically asked SCIENCE to publish his
letter in their hardcopy journal, since he was personally named in Scott's
article, but it obviously was too close to the bone for that!
In his letter Behe points out that the *real* problem with his stand is not
because he is a creationist (since he believes in common descent), but
rather it is because he argues that "intelligent design in biology .... is
empirically detectable":
"Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even
though I clearly write in my book "Darwin's Black Box" (which
Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt
common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably
with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think
"evolution occurred, but was guided by God." Where I and others
run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education
(NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is
not invisible, it is empirically detectable."
This "empirically detectable" claim is what ID is *all* about. One can
believe, like Behe, in "God-guided" evolution and be tolerated by Scott
and her ilk. Where one crosses the line and becomes effectively a
"creationist" in their eyes, is when one dares to claim that such "God-
guided" evolution might actually look *empirically* different from
unguided evolution.
2. I have also attached for interest letters from atheist evolutionary
biologist William Provine and the YEC Duane Gish who are both arguing
for creationism to be taught in schools!
3. With the increase of posting by atheist/agnostics on this List, and the
lack of posting by theistic evolutionists challenging them, this List has
become something of a Jones vs The Rest! I am sure that this is not what
the Owners of the List intended, and it is not what I intended, but most
of the responses are addressed to me, and I have felt duty-bound to respond.
I enjoy an argument (maybe too much so!) but I regard much of what is
posted in responses these days as just going over the same old ground, and
largely a waste of everybody's time. I suspect other creationist/IDers
would post more often but they are intimidated by the abuse and ridicule
they would probably receive from some on the evolution side.
I still marvel at how the atheists on this List seem to have no self-
awareness of the role that their ultimate metaphsyical assumptions
shape and colour their perception of the facts. They seem to really
believe that they have cornered the market on rationality and their
opponents are just a bunch of fools and ignoramuses.
With second semester of my Biology degree looming, I will again have to
cut back on the time I spend on the Reflector. Therefore, I am going back
to my original policy of mostly only posting articles on Creation/Evolution
issues.
So from now on I will tend to ignore responses to my articles/posts unless
they are: 1) from a new member or a less frequent poster; 2) offer support
or *constructive* criticism; or 3) are saying something genuinely
new.
Steve
====================================================
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/288/5467/813?ck=nck#EL74
[...]
Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism 7 July 2000
Michael J. Behe,
Professor of Biological Sciences
Lehigh University
[...]
Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I
clearly write in my book "Darwin's Black Box" (which Scott cites) that I
am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In
fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that
Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God."
Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science
Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology
is not invisible, it is empirically detectable. The biological literature is
replete with statements like David DeRosier's in the journal "Cell":
"More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed
by a human" (1). Exactly why is it a thought-crime to make the case that
such observations may be on to something objectively correct?
Scott blames "frontier," "nonhierarchical" religions for the controversy in
biology education in the United States. As a member of the decidedly
hierarchical, mainstream Roman Catholic Church, I think a better
candidate for blame is the policing of orthodoxy by the NCSE and
others-abetting lawsuits to suppress discussion of truly open questions
and decrying academic advocates of intelligent design for "organiz[ing]
conferences" and "writ[ing] op-ed pieces and books." Among a lot of
religious citizens, who aren't quite the yahoos evolutionists often seems
to think they are, such activities raise doubts that the issues are being
fairly presented, which might then cause some people to doubt the
veracity of scientists in other areas too. Ironically, the activity of Scott
and the NCSE might itself be promoting the mistrust of science they
deplore.
1. David J. DeRosier, Cell 93, 17 (1998).
[...]
Muzzling Creationists 15 May 2000
William B. Provine,
Professor
Cornell University
[...]
For many years, Scott and I have been friendly adversaries on the learning of
evolutionary biology in "K-12" education. We agree that teaching biblical creationism
is unconstitutional in public schools. No constitutional barrier, however, prevents
students in biology classes from expressing their views. Most evolutionists prefer to
muzzle the free speech of creationists. Since no one likes to be robbed of free
speech, it is no wonder creationists wish to influence school boards and teachers. As
a long-time teacher of evolutionary biology from grade school through graduate
school, I encourage the participation of all students and have always found them
excited by this approach. Evolutionists will not convince nonbelievers by preventing
them from speaking.
One sentence on evolutionary biology appears in the last paragraph of Scott's essay:
"According to the neutralist principle in biology, a mutation will eventually replace the
wild type unless it is opposed by natural selection." What is this neutralist principle? I
am writing a history of the theories of neutral molecular evolution but am unaware of
any such principle.
[...]
Supreme Court Ruling 7 July 2000
Duane T. Gish,
Senior Vice President
Institute for Creation Research, P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021
[...]
In her Essay, Scott says "the Supreme Court has ruled that teaching creationism and
creation 'science' are unconstitutional." In a letter published in Nature (1) in 1987,
after the Supreme Court decision on the Louisiana equal time legislation, Scott said
"the Supreme Court decision says only that the Louisiana law violates the
constitutional separation of church and state; it does not say that no one can teach
scientific creationism--and unfortunately many individual teachers do." These
statements appear to be contradictory. Which one is true? In an article published in
1987 in the New York Times Magazine (2), Stephen Jay Gould says "Creationists
claim their law broadened the freedom of teachers by permitting the introduction of
controversial material. But no statute exists in any state to bar instruction in 'creation
science'. It could be taught before, and it can be taught now." Michael Zimmerman in
Bioscience in 1987 says "The Supreme Court ruling did not, in any way, outlaw the
teaching of 'creation science' in public school classrooms. Quite simply it ruled that in
the form taken by the Louisiana law, it is unconstitutional to demand equal time for
this particular subject. 'Creation science' can still be brought into science classrooms
if and when teachers and administrators feel it is appropriate."
By Scott's own words, the concurrence of Gould and Zimmerman, and a reading of
the Supreme Court's decision concerning the Louisiana law, it seems clear that the
decision did not declare that teaching scientific evidence that supports creation in
public school classrooms is unconstitutional and thus prohibited. This false notion is
incessantly repeated by those who adamantly oppose such educational activities. As
Richard Lewontin has rightly stated, evolution and creationism are irreconcilable
worldviews. When each is stripped down to the bare bones, each is intrinsically
religious. Although they constitute inferences based on circumstantial evidence, the
evidence supporting each is by nature scientific and should be made available to
students in the tax-supported public schools of our pluralistic democratic society.
References
1. E. Scott, Nature 329, 282 (1987).
2. S. J. Gould, "The verdict on creationism," New York Times Mag. (19 July 1987), p.
34.
3. M. Zimmerman, Bioscience 37 (no. 9), 635 (1987).
[...]
====================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yet Teggart once again points out the truly interesting lesson of Darwin's
confrontation with the fossil record. Darwin's early scientific experience
was primarily as a geologist, and much of what he had to say about the
nature of the fossil record (summarized in the passage quoted above) was
an accurate and insightful early contribution to our understanding of the
vagaries of deposition and the preservation of fossils. But his Chapter 9
(first edition) on the imperfections of the geological record is one long ad
hoc, special-pleading argument designed to rationalize, to flat-out explain
away, the differences between what he saw as logical predictions derived
from his theory and the facts of the fossil record." (Eldredge N., "Time
Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of
Punctuated Equilibria", Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, pp.27-28)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 13 2000 - 18:20:43 EDT