Reflectorites
On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 01:05:30 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
[...]
RW>Johnson implicitly admits that his case against Darwinism is not based on
>scientific evidence (which as just as well, as he doesn't have any , ...
Note well that Richard (who claimed that his best evidence for
Darwinian evolution was a *computer simulation* in a scientific paper *he
had never read*!), here claims that there isn't "any" "scientific evidence"
against "Darwinism"!
One is reminded of Kerkut's dialogue with a student:
"The undergraduate of today is just as bad; he is still the same
opinion-swallowing grub. He will gladly devour opinions and views
that he does not properly understand in the hope that he may later
regurgitate them during one of his examinations. Regardless of his
subject, be it Engineering, Physics, English or Biology, he will have
faith in theories that he only dimly follows and will call upon
various authorities to support what he does not understand. In this
he differs not one bit from the irrational theology student of the
bygone age who would mumble his dogma and hurry through his
studies in order to reach the peace and plenty of the comfortable
living in the world outside. But what is worse, the present-day
student claims to be different from his predecessor in that he thinks
scientifically and despises dogma, and when challenged he says in
defence, "After all, one has to accept something, or else it takes a
very long time to get anywhere."
Well, let us see the present-day student "getting somewhere." For
some years now I have tutored undergraduates on various aspects
of Biology. It is quite common during the course of conversation to
ask the student if he knows the evidence for Evolution. This usually
evokes a faintly superior smile at the simplicity of the question,
since it is an old war-horse set in countless examinations. "Well, sir,
there is the evidence from palaeontology, comparative anatomy,
embryology, systematics and geographical distributions," the
student will say in a nursery-rhyme jargon, sometimes even ticking
off the words on his fingers. He would then sit and look fairly
complacent and wait for a more difficult question to follow, such as
the nature of the evidence for Natural Selection. Instead I would
continue on with Evolution.
"Do you think that the Evolutionary Theory is the best explanation
yet advanced to explain animal interrelationships?" I would ask.
"Why, of course, sir," would be the reply in some amazement at my
question." There is nothing else, except for the religious explanation
held by some Fundamentalist Christians, and I gather, sir, that these
views are no longer held by the more up-to-date Churchmen."
"So," I would continue, "you believe in Evolution because there is
no other theory?"
"Oh, no, sir," would be the reply, "I believe in it because of the
evidence I just mentioned."
"Have you read any book on the evidence for Evolution?" I would
ask.
"Yes, sir," and here he would mention the names of authors of a
popular school textbook, "and of course, sir, there is that book by
Darwin, The Origin of Species."
"Have you read this book?" I asked.
"Well, not all through, sir."
"About how much?"
"The first part, sir."
"The first fifty pages?"
"Yes, sir, about that much; maybe a bit less."
"I see, and that has given you your firm understanding of
Evolution?"
"Yes, sir."
"Well, now, if you really understand an argument you will be able
to indicate to me not only the points in favour of the argument but
also the most telling points against it."
"I suppose so, sir."
"Good. Please tell me, then, some of the evidence against the
theory of Evolution."
"Against what, sir?"
"The theory of Evolution."
"But there isn't any, sir."
(Kerkut G.A., "Implications of Evolution," 1960, pp.3-4)
Maybe Richard (or any other evolutionist) would be able to post what they
consider "the most telling points against it", i.e. Evolution?
I have asked this question from time to time on this List, and from memory I
have *never* yet had a reply.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hoyle considers the carbon-oxygen synthesis coincidence so remarkable
that it seems like a `put-up job'. Regarding the delicate positioning of the
nuclear resonances, he comments: 'If you wanted to produce carbon and
oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the
two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just
about where these levels are actually found to be .... A commonsense
interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with
physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces
worth speaking about in nature'." (Hoyle F., 'The Universe: Some Past and
Present Reflections," University of Cardiff, 1982, p16, in Davies P.C.W.,
"The Accidental Universe," [1982], Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge UK, 1983, reprint, p.118)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 25 2000 - 18:08:00 EDT