Astrophysics PhD "argues" creationism
Daniel Davidson
[ Author was Brian Rush ]
[ Posted on 6 Mar 1994 07:46:18 GMT ]
In article <2lapv4$c...@news.csus.edu> davi...@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Daniel Davidson) writes:
>[ Article crossposted from talk.origins ]
>[ Author was ALAN WIRKLER ]
>[ Posted on 5 Mar 1994 18:33:24 GMT ]
>
>The Compuserve forum, DINOSAURS, has recently been overrun by creationists.
>I normally don't get involved in these discussions because I feel I'm not
>qualified to address the scientific issues (of course that never stops the
>creationists).
Well, not always, but it stops them MUCH more often thatn it stops the
evolutionists.
> I am not a scientist--just an interested layman. Heck, I'm
>a simple farmer by profession, but I know bs when I see it.
Obviously not, unless it's sitting around your farm. I'm no expert
farmer, just a simpleton a few months away from a PhD in astrophysics,
so the only bs I get to see is all that BigBang hogwash around here.
>
>I have included a few sample posts from the forum. Nothing new. We've seen
>it all before on t.o. Anyway, my points:
>
>Does anyone here have access to Compuserve who would like to take on the
>C'ists? This is a call for help.
I'll go help them. Unless, of course, you are afraid of the facts
messing up your pre-conceived conclusions.
>I am familiar with ICR, but not so familiar with the CRS with its 500
>scientists "actively engaged in research." Anyone know more about this group?
>Perhaps an update to the Credentials FAQ could be made?
Well, in a nutshell, they have a much higher IQ and are much more
rational and objective in their science than the idiots running around
here at UCLA calling themselves professors. I'm sure some people will
just laugh at this, so I'll explain why--the difference betweem me and
such people is that my info of both groups of "experts" as well as their
"science" is first hand, whereas that of of pro-evolution-programmed
robots is almost entirely heresay.
>Brett Vickers and R Day have discussed Bird's book mentioned below. Any other
>comments?
I haven't read what's below yet. Maybe when I get there...
>
>I have read the How Not to Argue with Creationist (or something like that)
>FAQ. How about a How _TO_ Argue with a Creationist FAQ.
If it's as dishonest as the former it will be about as useful. I'll
write one if you'd like.
>
>Forum posts:
>(1)-----------------
>Subj: Creationism Section: Dino CONTROVERSY?
> To: sysop Saturday, December 18, 1993 2:17:19 PM
>From: Peter Shankey, 70661,3236 #4413
>
>I had a discussion with a person about creationism verses evolutionalism,
>several points came up that I hope you could comment on:
>
>1) What are the "rules of evidence" concerning both?
>
>2) It seems that creationism is based upon showing that there are holes
>the thoery of evolution. Thus, the thoery of creation is not a thoery
>at all because a thoery must be based upon it's own evidence not simply
> showing that the other one is not true. Would you agree of disagree with
> the above statement and if so why?
>
>3) What evidence is there that suports the thoery of creation?
>
>4) What is a good book that talks about the contraversy?
> Thanks
> Pete
>(2)-----------------------------------
>
>Subj: Creationism Section: Dino CONTROVERSY?
> To: Peter Shankey, 70661,3236 Thursday, January 13, 1994 8:40:09 PM
>From: Alan Wirkler, 72676,2643 #4681
>
>Peter,
>
>>1) What are the "rules of evidence" concerning both?
>
>Evolution: Science
>Creationism: The Bible
A statement like that is
nothing short of a bold-faced lie. It's not at the point to deserve a
reply yet until some support is given.
>
>>>2) It seems that creationism is based upon showing that there are
>holes the thoery of evolution. Thus, the thoery of creation is not
> a thoery at all because a thoery must be based upon it's own evidence
> not simply showing that the other one is not true. Would you
>agree of disagree with the above statement and if so why?
Again, I would simply disagree simly because it is a bold-faced lie.
Without support for such a statement, the ball is still in your court to
support it before you can go around asking people to defend it.
Although, that is a kind of reasoning that responsible scientists use,
so I wouldn't expect an evolutionist to be able to do so.
>From his book "Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution," Douglas Futuyama
>sums it up nicely:
> ". . . when we turn to creationist literature, we find no such process
> of investigation and testing at work. In actuality, almost all creationist
> literature simply consists of attacks on evolution, rather than positive
> evidence for creation. To the creationists, any evidence against
> evolutionary theory apparently contitutes evidence in favor of creation.
> Their consistent tactic is to present as "scientific evidence for creation"
> what are no more thancriticisms of existing scientific theories."
AGAIN!, what can be said other that to challenge someone to support such
dishonest statements. If I thought he deserved it, I could grab a number
of books a few feet away from me right now and show literally thousands
of cases where "creationsists" present things in such a professional
scientific way that evolutionists would get a headache from being froced
to think objectively upon reading it.
>
>>>3) What evidence is there that suports the thoery of creation?
>
> The Bible. Creationists do not accept any of the creation stories of other
>world religions. They would not for a moment accept the Chinese, Zulu, or
>Navajo creations stories on the same footing as the Biblical version.
Talk about selective research!! Sure, creationists believe the Bible,
but that serves as no more than a place to give them ideas which they
then go and research scientifically. In fact, a method of research which
is as scientifically respectable as anyone could request is seen more
among creationists than those scientists in __ANY__ field where research
is done, for example, at UCLA, and I say this based on first hand
knowledge of each. Of course if an "evolutionist" wants to
intentionally be deceptive and mention idiots like Henry Morris and his
buddies, noone will argue that they do horrible research (although they
are intrinsically a lot smarter than UCLA profs), but they are not the
leading "creationist" researchers, just the most famous ones. FOr people
too ignorant to have already realized this difference, I ask you: did
you actually think that Carl Sagan is a real scientist! Of course no
(any more, that is), but he's the worlds most famous one.
>>>4) What is a good book that talks about the contraversy?
>
>There are many good books on the subject.
>D.J. Futuyama, "Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution"
>Stephen Gould, "The Panda's Thumb"
>Stephen Gould, "Bully for Brontosaurus."
About Gould: Read Philip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial". This is
specifially useful for the layman since he's a genius law professor at
Berkely who doesn't approach this issue from the angle of arguing about
the scientific questions. He simple shows tha absolutely illogical
reasoning used by "evolutionists". Three whole chapters are devoted to
Gould, who Johnson quite literally shows to be a total idiot. Go read it
if you don't believe me and then tell me what you think.
>Isaac Asimov, "The Threat of Creationism," New York Times Magazine, Jun.14 '81
>N. Eldredge, "The Monkey Business"
I've NEVER heard a single scientist give Asimov any respect. He doesn't
deserve it and his inclusion just makes this whole book list look
suspect.
>For a sure cure for the creationist b.s., read their own literature:
>H.M. Morris & J.C. Whitcomb,"The Genesis Flood."
Again, that's a dishonest representation of creationism. Creationists
are putting more effort out these days to let everyone know what an
idiot Morris is than they are in any other issue.
>D.T. Gish, "Evolution: The Fossils Say NO!"
Actually, that book quite irrefutably show the absolute emptiness in the
argument for evolution from the fossil record. Although it is only fair
to say, that the fossil record is the weakest area for evolutionists,
except of course for the whole Bin-Bang-Bull. BTW, the title is
"Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record".
>
>"However much the creationist leaders might hammer away at their "scientific"
>and "philosophical" points, they would be helpless and a laughing-stock if that
> were all they had. It is religion that recruits their squadrons. Tens of
>millions of Americans, who neither know nor understand the actual arguments
>for--or even against--evolution, march in the army of the night with their
> Bibles held high. And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious
>to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason."
> --Isaac Asimov, 1981
Well, although Asimov is know for being a compulsive liar (I'll give you
a million to one odds that he made this up, as opposed to having
actually researched some facts to come up with that 10^7s number), this
statement is half-true. The true part is that there are many people like
that. The untrue part is that they DON'T represent creationism. If fact,
that statement would be a lot more accurate turned on evolutionists. Do
so and think about it (oh, I'm sorry to have asked evolutionists to
think about something. I hope it doesn't hurt).
>
>Subj: Creationism Section: Dino CONTROVERSY?
> To: Alan Wirkler, 72676,2643 Wednesday, February 23, 1994 9:02:15 AM
>From: Lucky Leavell, 71534,2674 #5176
>
>Have you heard of the Creation Research Society? They are a group of
> over 500 scientists who not only believe in the creation model but many
>are engaged in active research.
>
>(4)-----------------------------------------------
>Subj: Creationism Section: Dino CONTROVERSY?
> To: Alan Wirkler, 72676,2643 Saturday, February 26, 1994 12:05:09 PM
>From: Lucky Leavell, 71534,2674 #5215
>
>It would appear that the "Rules of Evidence" would be the same for both.
>Just what is meant by "Rules of Evidence"?
>
>Nature of Evidence: It would appear that anyone examining a given fossil
> could agree on certain basic "facts" (e.g., measurement, shape, location
>relative ot other fossils, etc).
>
>The problem is not with the evidence, it is with the interpretation of that
> evidence. Isubmit that the creationist's interpretation is no less valid
>and no less scientific than that of the evolutionist. The controversy arises
> when one interpretation is put forth as indisputable "fact" when it is only
> one person's opinion.
Yeah, I hate the way evolutionists do that.
> There is an excellent discourse on the nature of
>science in general and evolution vs creationism in particular in W. R. Bird's
> "The Origin of the Species Revisited, Vol II" Regency, 1991.
>
>Respectfully, Lucky
>(5)----------------------------------------------------
>Subj: Creationism Section: Dino CONTROVERSY?
> To: Peter Shankey, 70661,3236 Saturday, February 26, 1994 10:50:29 AM
>From: Lucky Leavell, 71534,2674 #5213
>
>I have already replied twice but I found a marvellous reference book on my own
> bookshelf last night:
>
> The Origin of the Species Revisited, Vol I & II by W. R. Bird
> Regency, Nashville, TN 1991
>
>This is a very scholarly tome totalling over 1100 pages and praised by both
>evolutionists and non-evolutionists alike.
>----------------------------------------
>
>Any and all comments welcome.
>Thanks for your time
>
>---------------------------------------
>Alan Wirkler AWIR...@ins.infonet.net
> 72676...@compuserv.com
>
>--
> ** Daniel Davidson **
> San Francisco State University
> davi...@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu
>
> When seeing someone lying unconcious on a city street, it is
> considered approriate to continue walking, essentially unaffected.
>
>
--
** Daniel Davidson **
San Francisco State University
davi...@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu
When seeing someone lying unconcious on a city street, it is
considered approriate to continue walking, essentially unaffected.
James J. Lippard
>[ Article crossposted from alt.fan.rush-limbaugh ]
>[ Author was Brian Rush ]
>[ Posted on 6 Mar 1994 07:46:18 GMT ]
>
>>FAQ. How about a How _TO_ Argue with a Creationist FAQ.
>If it's as dishonest as the former it will be about as useful. I'll
>write one if you'd like.
As the author of the "How Not to Argue with Creationists" FAQ, I challenge
Mr. Rush to point out a single example of dishonesty in it. I suspect
that Mr. Rush has not even read it, nor even knows how to locate a copy.
If Mr. Rush cannot substantiate his statement, I strongly urge him to
retract it. I consider it to be libelous. And if I am right that
Mr. Rush has not read it, then I consider *his* statement to be dishonest.
Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lip...@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
NICHOLLS PHILIP A
>Obviously not, unless it's sitting around your farm. I'm no expert
>farmer, just a simpleton a few months away from a PhD in astrophysics,
>so the only bs I get to see is all that BigBang hogwash around here.
> About Gould: Read Philip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial". This is
>specifially useful for the layman since he's a genius law professor at
>Berkely who doesn't approach this issue from the angle of arguing about
>the scientific questions. He simple shows tha absolutely illogical
>reasoning used by "evolutionists". Three whole chapters are devoted to
>Gould, who Johnson quite literally shows to be a total idiot. Go read it
>if you don't believe me and then tell me what you think.
Yes, Let's let lawyers teach us about biology. That makes a good deal of
sense.
>> ** Daniel Davidson **
>> San Francisco State University
>> davi...@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu
This is very strange. San Francisco State doesn't have a Ph.D program
in astrophysics.
--
Philip Nicholls "To ask a question,
Department of Anthropology you must first know
SUNY Albany most of the answer."
pn8...@thor.albany.edu
scharle
Keywords:
In article <2lc9d1$5...@news.csus.edu>, davi...@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Daniel Davidson) writes:
|> [ Article crossposted from alt.fan.rush-limbaugh ]
|> [ Author was Brian Rush ]
|> [ Posted on 6 Mar 1994 07:46:18 GMT ]
[...sorry, but the attributions are a little complicated here,
my apologies to Brian if this isn't his...]
...
|> About Gould: Read Philip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial". This is
|> specifially useful for the layman since he's a genius law professor at
|> Berkely who doesn't approach this issue from the angle of arguing about
|> the scientific questions. He simple shows tha absolutely illogical
|> reasoning used by "evolutionists". Three whole chapters are devoted to
|> Gould, who Johnson quite literally shows to be a total idiot. Go read it
|> if you don't believe me and then tell me what you think.
Well, it seems that we must have read different books. My copy of
the book includes the statement that Johnson is "an admirer of Gould's
essays", and that Johnson "nearly always profits from reading them"
(p. 157). Perhaps it would be easier if you would tell us which three
chapters are devoted to showing "quite literally" that Gould is "a
total idiot".
However, we do agree that Johnson doesn't argue in support of
"creationism":
"I am not a defender of creation-science ..." (page 14).
--
Tom Scharle |scharle@irishmvs
Room G003 Computing Center |sch...@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu
University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
James J. Lippard
>> davi...@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Daniel Davidson) writes:
[This attribution is in error. -jjl]
>>Obviously not, unless it's sitting around your farm. I'm no expert
>>farmer, just a simpleton a few months away from a PhD in astrophysics,
>>so the only bs I get to see is all that BigBang hogwash around here.
>>> ** Daniel Davidson **
>>> San Francisco State University
>>> davi...@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu
>
>This is very strange. San Francisco State doesn't have a Ph.D program
>in astrophysics.
Daniel Davidson reposted something from Brian Rush, as he indicated
at the beginning of his article. (Unfortunately, he didn't include
such information as Rush's email address.)
Brian Rush
>In article <2lc9d1$5...@news.csus.edu>, davi...@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Daniel Davidson) writes...
>>[ Article crossposted from alt.fan.rush-limbaugh ]
>>[ Author was Brian Rush ]
>>[ Posted on 6 Mar 1994 07:46:18 GMT ]
>>
>>>I have read the How Not to Argue with Creationist (or something like that)
>>>FAQ. How about a How _TO_ Argue with a Creationist FAQ.
>>If it's as dishonest as the former it will be about as useful. I'll
>>write one if you'd like.
>
>As the author of the "How Not to Argue with Creationists" FAQ, I challenge
>Mr. Rush to point out a single example of dishonesty in it. I suspect
>that Mr. Rush has not even read it, nor even knows how to locate a copy.
>
>If Mr. Rush cannot substantiate his statement, I strongly urge him to
>retract it. I consider it to be libelous. And if I am right that
>Mr. Rush has not read it, then I consider *his* statement to be dishonest.
I have it and I have read it several times. The lies in it are not along
the lines of statements of scientific points, but the implications that
creationists are less reasonable in their discussions than are
evolutionists. Both camps have all possible examples in them is what's
really the case.
-Brian
Brian Rush
>> davi...@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Daniel Davidson) writes:
>
>>Obviously not, unless it's sitting around your farm. I'm no expert
>>farmer, just a simpleton a few months away from a PhD in astrophysics,
>>so the only bs I get to see is all that BigBang hogwash around here.
>
>> About Gould: Read Philip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial". This is
>>specifially useful for the layman since he's a genius law professor at
>>Berkely who doesn't approach this issue from the angle of arguing about
>>the scientific questions. He simple shows tha absolutely illogical
>>reasoning used by "evolutionists". Three whole chapters are devoted to
>>Gould, who Johnson quite literally shows to be a total idiot. Go read it
>>if you don't believe me and then tell me what you think.
>
>Yes, Let's let lawyers teach us about biology. That makes a good deal of
>sense.
The WHOLE POINT was the Johnson is more qualified than any scientist to
disect the logic of arguments which is what his book is about (in fact
some of his peers say he's one of the most qualified people in the world
for this). That was so obvious in my paragraph above I can't believe you
missed it.
>
>
>>> ** Daniel Davidson **
>>> San Francisco State University
>>> davi...@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu
>
>This is very strange. San Francisco State doesn't have a Ph.D program
>in astrophysics.
>
Talk about selective editing... I'm from UCLA and I'm not this Daniel
guy. Such things were obvious in about half a dozen ways from reading
the whole post. BTW, I wasn't using a so-called "appeal to authority" by
mentioning the PhD. Just the opposite, I was sarcastically (although I
realize now not so clearly) saying to the other guy that I don't put
that much weight in degrees, but since he seemed to I was saying, "OK,
here's my degree".
-Brian
Wade Hines
>In article <6MAR1994...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lip...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
j
Rush:If it's as dishonest as the former it will be about as useful. I'll
>>>write one if you'd like.
Mr Rush has spewed forth quite an impressive attack on evolution without
ever really attacking anything of science but just scientists. In turn he
seems to adhere to creationism but has not commited to any particular brand
be it a 6000 year old earth or a believer in a global flood. He has made
unsupported claims that creation scientists are smarter than evolutionists.
One wonders why? What difference could this make even if it were true?
Dueling authorities is not and has never been what science is about. Science
is about evidence and the logic that connects it.
You made some very bold claims about Johnson and Gish Mr. Rush but I doubt
you could actually defend their writings. However, I welcome you to try.
Johnson himself has appeared on the net and failed to defend his own lies.
Maybe you could do better.
I'll go on record for you. I find the evidence favors a 4-5 billion year old
earth with evolution of all currently living animals from acestral life forms.
I note that the fossile record, embryology, comparative anatomy, and
molecularbiology (my favorite) all support common decent. There are no barriors
to evolution to support the creationist notions of devine "kinds". In fact,
logic would suggest that evolution couldn't not happen.
Do you have any real positions or do you just play games of authority ala
my dad's bigger than your dad?
We'ld love to hear your scientific theory of creation but I doubt you have
one as you claimed. I'll be looking forward to your posts but please keep
them to a single subject at a time. That way you won't be able to weasle
out of evidence that I suspect will refute any creationist claims you care
to make. Crosspost to the rushnet if you like but put it to talk.origins too
if you think you can face real scrutiny.
--Wade
Warren vonRoeschlaub
>In article <1994Mar6.1...@sarah.albany.edu> pn8...@thor.albany.edu (NICHOLLS PHILIP A) writes:
>>Yes, Let's let lawyers teach us about biology. That makes a good deal of
>>sense.
>
>The WHOLE POINT was the Johnson is more qualified than any scientist to
>disect the logic of arguments which is what his book is about (in fact
>some of his peers say he's one of the most qualified people in the world
>for this). That was so obvious in my paragraph above I can't believe you
>missed it.
It was obvious, and totally irrelevant. Scientific investigation is not
about argument, it is about hypothesis testing. Any idiot can sit back in his
armchair and declare something wrong, but few, Johnson included, actually give
any serious reasons.
Johnson has posted here (talk.origins) before, he did not even attempt to
adress science after the first try, and he has not responded to many point
made. He has turned into a hit-and-run poster: drop a quick, inflammitory
post full of unsubstantiated comments, then completely ignore the flurry of
posts pointing out everything from misinterpretation of science to, yes,
logical fallacies.
But let's be generous. Name a single logical flaw that puts evolution (or
the Big Bang since you seem to prefer that one) in jeopardy.
--
Seth J. Bradley
>disect the logic of arguments which is what his book is about (in fact
>some of his peers say he's one of the most qualified people in the world
>for this). That was so obvious in my paragraph above I can't believe you
>missed it.
And others of his peers (my father is one example, former law professor,
Lt. Colonel JAGC, ret., has state supreme court case experience) feel
that Johnson isn't so supremely qualified when it comes to his specialty,
namely law. Johnson claims that his desire to have "intelligent design"
taught in school science classes in no way violates the Separation Clause.
State supreme court decisions say otherwise. Johnson likes to ignore legal
precedents in defense of his cause. If his legal stance is weak, why should
we give his other arguments more credence?
P.S. I still owe talk.origins a legal discourse on Johnson's recent series
of posts - I haven't forgotten.
--
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SSD-CT
Internet: sbra...@scic.intel.com UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one. The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare. On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!" -Michael O'Brien
Brian Rush
The Big Bang is intelligent science and internally consistent (so far).
The reason I don't buy it is that it's 99+% ad hoc, i.e. modern-day
epicycles. What's puzzling is that in areas of science that don't
touch on the C-E controversy, a similarly supported theory would be
met with much more suspicion. Why give Evolution-realted theories
special treatment? And why don't evolutionists sign their names?
-Brian
Michael S. Robinson
>[ Article crossposted from alt.fan.rush-limbaugh ]
>[ Author was Brian Rush ]
>[ Posted on 6 Mar 1994 07:46:18 GMT ]
>
>dishonest statements. If I thought he deserved it, I could grab a number
>of books a few feet away from me right now and show literally thousands
>of cases where "creationsists" present things in such a professional
>scientific way that evolutionists would get a headache from being froced
>to think objectively upon reading it.
>
Please post a reference to even one.
> ** Daniel Davidson **
> San Francisco State University
> davi...@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu
>
> When seeing someone lying unconcious on a city street, it is
> considered approriate to continue walking, essentially unaffected.
--
Michael S. Robinson
UAB Birmingham AL
mro...@phy.uab.edu
Broughton, Wayne Jeremy
(Brian Rush ) writes...
(and that was not my primary major), in what way is the theory
ad hoc? Perhaps we should clarify what we mean by "the Big Bang
theory". As I understand it, the idea that between 12 and 20 billion
years ago the universe was in a very hot, very dense state is supported
by observations and general relativity. The laws governing particle
interactions at those energies seem to be understood and experimentally
verified (at least from the Hadronic Era on; I leave aside the GUT and
superstring theories). Primordial nucleosynthesis also seems to be
understood and supported by observation of the relative abundance of
light elements, and of course the presence and temperature of the
microwave background seem to be accounted for by the theory. Am I
being too naive about something?
Pardon me for going out on a limb here, but since your specialty is
astrophysics (rather than particle physics), I conjecture that your
complaints are concerning galactic evolution. I believe that this
area is much less well understood, and suffers from an apparent
contradiction between the observed and predicted smoothness of the
early universe and the need for sufficient density variation to
explain the gravitational evolution of the galaxies in the time frame
necessary. Am I close?
**********************************************************************
Wayne J. Broughton "A little rudeness and disrespect can
wayn...@romeo.caltech.edu elevate a meaningless interaction to a
battle of wills and add drama to an
otherwise dull day." Calvin, to Hobbes
We now return you to your regularly scheduled program...
James J. Lippard
I still see no evidence here that you've read it at all, let alone
"several times." Please produce a quotation to substantiate your
charge that it contains "lies" of any kind, or retract your statement
and apologize for your unfounded accusations of dishonesty.
From what you've said so far, I would be surprised if you can even
summarize what the article is about.
Tom Swanson
>
>In a previous article, kv...@iastate.edu (Warren vonRoeschlaub) says:
>
>
>> But let's be generous. Name a single logical flaw that puts evolution (or
>>the Big Bang since you seem to prefer that one) in jeopardy.
>
>
>fallacies" which put "evolution" in jeopardy, but some related
>points do come to mind....
>
>1. It is illogical to claim that small changes over small time
>periods can be validly extrapolated to large changes over large
>time periods.
Why do you think this is illogical? Not that this is an accurate view of
evolution. We have (via the fossil record) seen the large changes.
We know that changes can occur and how that happens. There is no known
barrier to stop the changes at any particular point.
>2. It's plain silly to claim that "nothing in biology makes sense
>without evolution."
How about "There is much in biology that would not make sense without
evolution" ?
Tom Swanson | Oregon: Home af Tonya Harding, Bob Packwood
OSU Physics | and the OCA.
><DARWIN> | How proud we are.
L L
James C. Harrison
little gem could take it seriously. The author reminds me of one of those
advanced social construction of reality types who thinks that nature is
whatever we all decide it is. Having decided he could sway a jury
against Darwin, he thinks he's got arguments suitable for figuring out how
the world works when mostly he just demonstrates that he is out of his depth.
Let it be stipulated that most folks already agree with Johnson. That's
just another good reason to make sure that science is not conducted by a
show of hands.The evidence is overwhelming but not very
picturesque, and it requires effort and time to understand the arguments.
Anybody can make time with the people by flattering them, i.e.by suggesting
that their unconsidered opinions count when, of course, they don't when
truth is at stake.
By the way, is Rush Limbaugh a Creationist?
Jim Harrison
Mark Rupright
>In a previous article, kv...@iastate.edu (Warren vonRoeschlaub) says:
>
>>the Big Bang since you seem to prefer that one) in jeopardy.
>
>fallacies" which put "evolution" in jeopardy, but some related
>points do come to mind....
>
>1. It is illogical to claim that small changes over small time
>periods can be validly extrapolated to large changes over large
>time periods.
Not strictly true. The vast majority of science is based on some form of
model building. This requires a set of initial assumptions, and extrapolating
to predict the effects of these assumptions. If there is agreement between
these predicitions and observations, the model and its assumptions are
strengthened. Logic does not come into play here.
As for evolution, one could argue that the reverse of what you stated above
is the case. Biologists noticed a gradual change in the fossil record over
long periods of time, and predicted that there must be some short-term,
small-scale mechanism for such changes to take place. Two models were
Lamarck's 'acquired traits' and Mendel's genetics. It is an exercise for the
reader to discover which model has survived. :-)
>2. It's plain silly to claim that "nothing in biology makes sense
>without evolution."
Nothing may be too strong, but just barely. Try to come up with a
consistent science of Biology, without evolution, which is more than just
a systematic classification of organisms. I.e. give it some real predictive
and explanatory power.
>Just my two pennies...
___________________________________________________________________________
Mark Rupright | "The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a
UNC Physics | beautiful theory by an ugly fact."
rupr...@physics.unc.edu | Thomas Huxley
Michael Siemon
>In re Darwin on Trial. I can't believe anybody who has actually read this
>little gem could take it seriously.
agreed.
>The author reminds me of one of those
>advanced social construction of reality types
>who thinks that nature is
Oh, dear. I am one of those "social construction of reality types" --
perhaps I am just not advanced enough for your purposes (FWIW, Johnson
is likely to be even more violently negative about sociological depend-
encies in our world views than he is about evolution. Think about it;
please.)
>whatever we all decide it is.
Ah; so nature is what we (e.g. researchers in biological and physical
science) *don't* decide it is? I'm confused; do you want to help me out?
--
Michael L. Siemon "We honour founders of these starving cities
m...@panix.com Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
- or - They built by rivers and at night the water
m...@ulysses.att.com Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
Benjamin Snowhare Franz
: In a previous article, kv...@iastate.edu (Warren vonRoeschlaub) says:
: > But let's be generous. Name a single logical flaw that puts evolution (or
: >the Big Bang since you seem to prefer that one) in jeopardy.
: Hmmm. I can't speak for Johnson, and I don't know any "logical
: fallacies" which put "evolution" in jeopardy, but some related
: points do come to mind....
: 1. It is illogical to claim that small changes over small time
: periods can be validly extrapolated to large changes over large
: time periods.
Argument from the Heap. Classic logic fallacy. Argument from the heap
asserts that a lot of little changes can't add up to a big change.
Example (blatent steal from my philosophy professor):
The All Cats Must Die Painfully Society had only two members in 1800.
Since then they have only grown by 10% per year. Obviously they cannot be a
very large organization having grown such a small amount every year.
(Membership in 1994 ~ 100 million!)
Given large amounts of time there does not appear to be anyway for small
changes to *not* add up to large changes.
: 2. It's plain silly to claim that "nothing in biology makes sense
: without evolution."
Slightly overstated perhaps. But the fact is once you look at more than a
very small piece of biology, evolution slaps you in the face everytime you
turn around. Taxonomy, genetics, biochemistry, ecology, etc, etc, etc all
use evolutionary theory as their foundation.
It is possible to do only *extremely* limited work without considering
evolution.
--
Benjamin "Snowhare" Franz
Mark Rupright
The Big Bang model doesn't give a flip about the C-E 'controversy.' As you
must well know, it is a solution of Einstein's equations which explains:
1. The observed expansion of the universe.
2. The observed nearly homogeneous and isotropic 3K cosmic background
radiation.
3. Relative abundances of isotopes.
etc.
Evolution requires an earth which is on the order of 10^9 years old. This
age has much observational support which has nothing to do with the Big
Bang. In fact, Hubble's original calculation of the expansion predicted a
universe which was younger than the already well-established age of the
earth. This was viewed as a problem with Hubble's model.
I'd be interested to hear what cosmological model you would have us
believe. Remember that it had better be a solution to Einstein's equation
(as is the FRW Big Bang model). Or would you throw out General Relativity
as being 99+% ad hoc as well?
BTW there is no C-E 'controversy' among scientists. You seem to admire the
CRS as being more scientific that UCLA physicists. Surely you have heard
of the CRS's declaration of belief in Genesis creation which their
'scientists' must sign before they join? Would you call that attitude
scientific? Can you name any other 'research' organization which requires
their members to declare their belief in an outcome before the research is
even done? (Give specifics, don't say 'evolutionists' or UCLA physicists).
________________________________________________________________________
Mark Rupright | Disclaimer:
UNC Physics | We're all figments of my dog's imagination.
rupr...@physics.unc.edu | Blame her.
Stephen F. Schaffner
>The Big Bang is intelligent science and internally consistent (so far).
>The reason I don't buy it is that it's 99+% ad hoc, i.e. modern-day
>epicycles. What's puzzling is that in areas of science that don't
>touch on the C-E controversy, a similarly supported theory would be
>met with much more suspicion. Why give Evolution-realted theories
>special treatment? And why don't evolutionists sign their names?
This has me baffled. The Big Bang was received with a great deal of
skepticism, at least some small part of which was because it sounded too
much like a creation event. What I'm really having trouble with is
coming up with a branch of science that has *less* to do with evolution
than does the Big Bang? What do you mean?
--
Steve Schaffner ssc...@slac.stanford.edu
The opinions expressed may be mine, || How matter presses on me!
and may not be those of SLAC, Stanford || What stubborn things facts are.
University, or the DOE. || William Hazlitt
Brian Rush
Well, be surprised: it talks all about various things that
evolutionists have said that weren't honest or weren't accurate
or were somehow weak, and which were then often exposed as such. You
then quite responisbly (and to anyone who reads t.o quite shockingly)
criticized them for it. When I read it (several times, probably about
a year to 1.5 years ago) I remember reading misrepresentations of
the genuineness of some creationists in certain cases, very similar to
the things you were criticizing the other evolutionists for. If you
email
it to me (I know longer have my copy) I'll be glad to read it again and
get back to you, since exact specifics are not at the forefront of my
mind (I doubt you could expect them to; I cant' even remember the
specifics about the first chapter of m thesis which I wrote over a
year ago and haven't touched that topic since).
-Brian
Brian Rush
>In article <2ldspl$k...@news.mic.ucla.edu>, ru...@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu
> (Brian Rush ) writes...
>>In article <2ldn5c$m...@news.iastate.edu> kv...@iastate.edu
> (Warren vonRoeschlaub) writes:
>>> But let's be generous. Name a single logical flaw that puts evolution (or
>>>the Big Bang since you seem to prefer that one) in jeopardy.
>>
>>The Big Bang is intelligent science and internally consistent (so far).
>>The reason I don't buy it is that it's 99+% ad hoc, i.e. modern-day
>>epicycles. What's puzzling is that in areas of science that don't
>>touch on the C-E controversy, a similarly supported theory would be
>>met with much more suspicion. Why give Evolution-realted theories
>>special treatment? And why don't evolutionists sign their names?
>>
>>-Brian
>>
>With the caveat that I only have an undergraduate education in physics
Actually, I'm the last person to say a person's degree or education is
more than very slightly related to their ability to comment on a
subject. I say let their knowledge speak for itself.
>(and that was not my primary major), in what way is the theory
>ad hoc? Perhaps we should clarify what we mean by "the Big Bang
>theory". As I understand it, the idea that between 12 and 20 billion
>years ago the universe was in a very hot, very dense state is supported
>by observations and general relativity. The laws governing particle
>interactions at those energies seem to be understood and experimentally
>verified (at least from the Hadronic Era on; I leave aside the GUT and
>superstring theories). Primordial nucleosynthesis also seems to be
>understood and supported by observation of the relative abundance of
>light elements, and of course the presence and temperature of the
>microwave background seem to be accounted for by the theory. Am I
>being too naive about something?
>
>Pardon me for going out on a limb here, but since your specialty is
>astrophysics (rather than particle physics), I conjecture that your
>complaints are concerning galactic evolution. I believe that this
>area is much less well understood, and suffers from an apparent
>contradiction between the observed and predicted smoothness of the
>early universe and the need for sufficient density variation to
>explain the gravitational evolution of the galaxies in the time frame
>necessary. Am I close?
I think we're just talking about different things. Sure, the BB agrees
with various observations, but it (meaning the spedifics) was made to do
so with the observations in hand. The ability of a 'theory' to predict
observables in a very general way isn't worth much, and the same can
even be said of more specific predictions if those are intrinsically
related to already-known observables, such that other theories would
predict them also and/or they fall into the category of something had to
be found and since everything was separately predicted at least one
prediction would come out true.
-Brian
Brian Rush
>In article <2ldspl$k...@news.mic.ucla.edu> ru...@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) writes:
>>In article <2ldn5c$m...@news.iastate.edu> kv...@iastate.edu (Warren vonRoeschlaub) writes:
>>>
>>> But let's be generous. Name a single logical flaw that puts evolution (or
>>>the Big Bang since you seem to prefer that one) in jeopardy.
>>
>>The Big Bang is intelligent science and internally consistent (so far).
>>The reason I don't buy it is that it's 99+% ad hoc, i.e. modern-day
>>epicycles. What's puzzling is that in areas of science that don't
>>touch on the C-E controversy, a similarly supported theory would be
>>met with much more suspicion. Why give Evolution-realted theories
>>special treatment? And why don't evolutionists sign their names?
>>
>>-Brian
>
>The Big Bang model doesn't give a flip about the C-E 'controversy.'
brought up together and deal with long vs. short timescales. Actually, I
didn't say this explicitly but it was very clearly implied.
>BTW there is no C-E 'controversy' among scientists. You seem to admire the
>CRS as being more scientific that UCLA physicists. Surely you have heard
>of the CRS's declaration of belief in Genesis creation which their
>'scientists' must sign before they join? Would you call that attitude
>scientific? Can you name any other 'research' organization which requires
>their members to declare their belief in an outcome before the research is
>even done? (Give specifics, don't say 'evolutionists' or UCLA physicists).
That's intersting, you want to allow accurate answers...
The CRS has that clause to protect them from worms, and don't think that
a number of people haven't tried. Even so, I'm surprised that you cant'
see how such a statement doesn't have to prevent someone from doing
honest science. I guarntee you that if UCLA was about to hire a new
physics prof that was super qualified so much that they were just
drooling over it ('it' takes less letter then he/she for this PC world),
they would withdrawal the offer immediately without even asking for
details if it said it didn't believe in the BB.
-Brian
:wq
Brian Rush
>Brian Rush (ru...@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu) wrote:
>: The Big Bang is intelligent science and internally consistent (so far).
>: The reason I don't buy it is that it's 99+% ad hoc, i.e. modern-day
>: epicycles. What's puzzling is that in areas of science that don't
>: touch on the C-E controversy, a similarly supported theory would be
>: met with much more suspicion. Why give Evolution-realted theories
>: special treatment? And why don't evolutionists sign their names?
>
>feel is objectionably ad hoc about the Big Bang theory (post inflationary
>era of course - that section of the theory is still fairly tentative)?
>
What part isn't? That's my whole point. That is by nature a general
statement.
-Brian
Dave Knapp
>
>The Big Bang is intelligent science and internally consistent (so far).
>The reason I don't buy it is that it's 99+% ad hoc, i.e. modern-day
>epicycles.
I thought you said you were an astrophysicist. Let's see... 99+% ad
hoc means that less than 1% of the theory is based upon observed evidence,
or that the theory is custom-made to fit the evidence via inordinate
complexity. Right? So why don't you give us an example of why the theory
is so ad hoc. Please cite some serious evidence that the BB scenario doesn't
address, and cannot without major change. Oh -- by the way, galaxy formation
doesn't count, and neither does dark matter.
-- Dave
--
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
* David Knapp d...@imager.llnl.gov (510) 422-1023 *
* 98.7% of all statistics are made up. *
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
Dave Knapp
>
>I think we're just talking about different things. Sure, the BB agrees
>with various observations, but it (meaning the spedifics) was made to do
>so with the observations in hand. The ability of a 'theory' to predict
>observables in a very general way isn't worth much, and the same can
>even be said of more specific predictions if those are intrinsically
>related to already-known observables, such that other theories would
>predict them also and/or they fall into the category of something had to
>be found and since everything was separately predicted at least one
>prediction would come out true.
Really? I had no idea that the BB theory didn't come out until the W
and Z bosons had been discovered, and that it didn't appear until after
the electroweak unification was verified. My, that's an interesting
reading of history.
I also didn't know that the BB theory postdated various measurements
of cosmochronometers; I guess I'll have to go re-read the books. And I
_really_ had no idea that it didn't come out until after the recent
COBE and Antarctic CMB measurements, since they came out so conveniently
close to predicted values, huh?
James J. Lippard
>In article <6MAR1994...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lip...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>>In article <2ldiqh$j...@news.mic.ucla.edu>, ru...@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) writes...
>>:the lines of statements of scientific points, but the implications that
>>:creationists are less reasonable in their discussions than are
>>:evolutionists. Both camps have all possible examples in them is what's
>>:really the case.
[deletions]
>>From what you've said so far, I would be surprised if you can even
>>summarize what the article is about.
>Well, be surprised: it talks all about various things that
>evolutionists have said that weren't honest or weren't accurate
>or were somehow weak, and which were then often exposed as such. You
>then quite responisbly (and to anyone who reads t.o quite shockingly)
>criticized them for it. When I read it (several times, probably about
>a year to 1.5 years ago) I remember reading misrepresentations of
>the genuineness of some creationists in certain cases, very similar to
>the things you were criticizing the other evolutionists for. If you
>email
>it to me (I know longer have my copy) I'll be glad to read it again and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>get back to you, since exact specifics are not at the forefront of my
>mind (I doubt you could expect them to; I cant' even remember the
>specifics about the first chapter of m thesis which I wrote over a
>year ago and haven't touched that topic since).
Unless you deleted your copy of "How Not to Argue with Creationists"
between the time you posted the article containing the first underlined
phrase and your most recent followup, it looks like you've made at least
one false statement in our exchange.
Your summary is still incredibly vague, and displays no knowledge of the
content of my article which couldn't be gleaned merely from the title.
(Nevertheless, I will accept your claim to have read it in the past--but
you clearly do not remember it well enough to be warranted in accusing
me of dishonesty!)
The claim that my article contains "misrepresentations of the genuineness
of some creationists in certain cases, very similar to the things you
were criticizing the other evolutionists for" is not entirely clear to me.
Do you mean by this that I misrepresented some creationists in the same
way that the evolutionists I criticized had done? If so, you are quite
mistaken. I will email you a copy of the article, after which I will
expect you to apologize and retract your hasty and ill-conceived
accusations.
Steve Price
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Steve Price |"Even my word processor knows! Everytime I do a spell |
|/\/\ Raven /\/\ | check, the word processor suggests 'creationism' to be|
|ra...@kaiwan.com | replaced by 'cretinism'!" SP |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Price
>>CRS as being more scientific that UCLA physicists. Surely you have heard
>>of the CRS's declaration of belief in Genesis creation which their
>>'scientists' must sign before they join? Would you call that attitude
>>scientific? Can you name any other 'research' organization which requires
>>their members to declare their belief in an outcome before the research is
>>even done? (Give specifics, don't say 'evolutionists' or UCLA physicists).
>That's intersting, you want to allow accurate answers...
>The CRS has that clause to protect them from worms, and don't think that
>a number of people haven't tried. Even so, I'm surprised that you cant'
>see how such a statement doesn't have to prevent someone from doing
>honest science.
Honest 'science' from signing a document that forces them to 'wear' an
intellectual straightjacket?!? That's a hoot!
> I guarntee you that if UCLA was about to hire a new
>physics prof that was super qualified so much that they were just
>drooling over it ('it' takes less letter then he/she for this PC world),
>they would withdrawal the offer immediately without even asking for
>details if it said it didn't believe in the BB.
>
>-Brian
Yea, right.. Do you know Abian and L. Plutonium personally?
Tero Sand
(Also note the subject change. Could people please try to keep these
relevant?)
>In article <2ldqf5$g...@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,
>Julie Thomas <bk...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
>>
>>In a previous article, kv...@iastate.edu (Warren vonRoeschlaub) says:
>>
>>> But let's be generous. Name a single logical flaw that puts evolution (or
>>>the Big Bang since you seem to prefer that one) in jeopardy.
>>
>>Hmmm. I can't speak for Johnson, and I don't know any "logical
>>fallacies" which put "evolution" in jeopardy, but some related
>>points do come to mind....
>>
>>1. It is illogical to claim that small changes over small time
>>periods can be validly extrapolated to large changes over large
>>time periods.
Wrong. What is wrong is to say that small changes over small time
periods AUTOMATICALLY LEADS TO large changes over large time periods.
This is what Creationists do all the time with the incredible shrinking
Sun argument and its ilk. _However_ - small changes etc. *do* lead to
large changes etc. if nothing prevents it from doing so. Now, since
"microevolution" is a fact, and since there is ample evidence showing
that there have been large changes (in small steps), and that the Earth
*is* old, the onus really is on the AMEs (Anti-MacroEvolutionists) to
show that there is a mechanism that limits change.
--
Tero Sand, 2 kyu ! Science is a process of enlarging one's
! ignorance to dizzying heights.
EMail: cus...@cc.helsinki.fi ! - D.C.Lindsay in talk.origins
cus...@cc.helsinki.fi !
Mark Rupright
>In article <2led23$m...@bigblue.oit.unc.edu> rupr...@physics.unc.edu (Mark Rupright) writes:
>>BTW there is no C-E 'controversy' among scientists. You seem to admire the
>>CRS as being more scientific that UCLA physicists. Surely you have heard
>>of the CRS's declaration of belief in Genesis creation which their
>>'scientists' must sign before they join? Would you call that attitude
>>scientific? Can you name any other 'research' organization which requires
>>their members to declare their belief in an outcome before the research is
>>even done? (Give specifics, don't say 'evolutionists' or UCLA physicists).
>
>That's intersting, you want to allow accurate answers...
>The CRS has that clause to protect them from worms, and don't think that
>a number of people haven't tried. Even so, I'm surprised that you cant'
>see how such a statement doesn't have to prevent someone from doing
>honest science.
A little Gedanken experiment:
Suppose a scientist joined the CRS and signed that pledge because it
(the scientist) felt that overwhelming evidence for creation had already
been demonstrated (this in itself is not 'unscientific' if the researcher
is honest). Suppose further that in the course of its research, it
discovers clear evidence for evolution (e.g. a new transitional form or
something). Clearly this finding would contradict the original assumption
of the scientist and the CRS. Questions:
(1) Would the CRS publish or endorse these findings, which support evolution?
(2) If no, would the scientist have to resign from the CRS in order to
publish these findings?
(3) If the scientist did not wish to resign from the CRS, would it then
have to deny its own findings?
My point is this: the CRS pledge may not tie the hands of individual
scientists, but it is certainly biased toward a desired outcome. Any
evidence found to be in support of evolution must either be hidden or
distanced from the CRS. Either way, this is blatant academic dishonesty as
the only results coming out of the CRS are those which it had previously
ordained to be the Truth (TM).
Comments? (And before you say 'Larry Curly and Moe scientists do the same
thing', let me remind you that it is still academic dishonesty and should
be stopped. The fact that respected scientists do it doesn't make it
scientific).
>I guarntee you that if UCLA was about to hire a new
>physics prof that was super qualified so much that they were just
>drooling over it ('it' takes less letter then he/she for this PC world),
>they would withdrawal the offer immediately without even asking for
>details if it said it didn't believe in the BB.
That depends. Would the prof be a cosmologist? If so, and since the prof
must have obviously done some impressive research, would it have proposed
an alternative model or endorsed an existing one? This alternative can be
compared to the BB. If the prof (in any specialty) said, 'I don't like the
BB, because of X, but I endorse Y because it explains X,' it is doubtful
that UCLA would withdraw the offer. If however, the prof said 'The BB is
99+% ad hoc and is thus bad science,' without offering an alternative,
UCLA might consider that prof an ignorant windbag and withdraw the offer.
BTW got an alternative to the Big Bang?
>-Brian
>:wq
______________________________________________________________________________
Mark Rupright | "Contrariwise, if it was so, it might be; and if it
UNC Physics | were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.
rupr...@physics.unc.edu | That's logic." Lewis Carroll
L. Drew Davis
>Well, be surprised: [Lippard's FAQ] talks all about various things that
>evolutionists have said that weren't honest or weren't accurate
>or were somehow weak, and which were then often exposed as such. You
>then quite responisbly (and to anyone who reads t.o quite shockingly)
>criticized them for it.
Just not enough tar on your brush to sling it all at once, eh?
In what way is this shocking? It doesn't shock me. In fact, t.o
regularly flames anyone who makes ludicrous posts, declaims without
knowing of what they speak, or who use faulty facts and logic.
I've lost outer layers of skin myself; Matthew W. recently flamed
himself, intentionally. You're merely being selective again.
I will, however, grant that creationists are flamed far more often
than evolutionists here. If you think about it, you'll realize that
that observation is not inconsistent with the above paragraph.
Just out of curiousity, do you have any actual scientific points to
make, or are you just going to cut straight to the sort of "I'm so
mistreated" meta-argument that creationists usually adopt after
having their intial ill-conceived foray blown out of the ether?
--------------
L. Drew Davis Internet: dr...@cc.gatech.edu
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt5645c
You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.
Benjamin Snowhare Franz
This borders on evasion. Several people have asked for a specific example
now and you have kept the handwaving mode going rather than provide one.
Your linguistic move of trying to shift the burden of demonstration to me
is not valid either. YOU made the assertion "that it's [the Big Bang
-bjf] 99+% ad hoc." It is YOUR responsiblity to back it up. Please just
answer the question:
What *in particular* do you feel is objectionably ad hoc about the Big
Bang theory?
If the Big Bang theory *is* in fact 99% ad hoc - it should be easy to
provide a specific example.
Followup question to the original question:
What does your *particular* objection have to do with evolution?
--
Benjamin Franz
Dan Day
:In article <2lecee$c...@u.cc.utah.edu> bf6...@u.cc.utah.edu (Benjamin "Snowhare" Franz) writes:
:>
:>Another general statement. Specifics please. What *in particular* do you
:>feel is objectionably ad hoc about the Big Bang theory (post inflationary
:>era of course - that section of the theory is still fairly tentative)?
:>
:What part isn't? That's my whole point. That is by nature a general
:statement.
Fine, but you still haven't answered the question. How about
picking a *particular* feature and explaining why you feel it's
ad hoc? Then we might actually be able to have a conversation.
Dan Day
>
>The WHOLE POINT was the Johnson is more qualified than any scientist to
>disect the logic of arguments which is what his book is about (in fact
>some of his peers say he's one of the most qualified people in the world
>for this).
"More qualified than *any* scientist"? This strikes me as more than
a bit ludicrous, just from the grandiose level of putting-on-a-pedestal
that's involved. Furthermore, scientists work with logic on an everyday
basis. Lawyers like Johnson work with argumentation, which often is free
to ignore logic entirely if it *sounds* convincing. What I've seen
of Johnson's book bears this out.
Even when he's not committing logical fallacies of his own (he has
appeared here on t.o. on a number of occasions and his arguments are
very poor, often blatantly fallacious), there's another point to
consider. What value is there if Johnson correctly points out a
logical flaw in a position but the position in question is one that
no scientist holds? *This* is Johnson's biggest problem, caused
directly by his lack of scientific understanding -- he misconstrues
the science he's trying to rebut, then tears apart the illogical
strawman of his own making. Needless to say, this has little to
do with finding flaws in what scientists *really* claim. This is
why people snicker when they hear of someone with no scientific
background supposedly tearing down some scientific theory -- it's
not that they think the person is stupid or illogical, it's that
they realize that the person is likely to misunderstand (or oversimplify)
the science to the point that it bears little resemblance to the actual
theory, which makes their critiques of the distorted theory have
little relevance to the actual theory. Of course, this kind of
argumentation sounds very convincing to someone who isn't themselves
familiar with the theory being examined, and if they take Johnson's
word for it that evolution is fairly represented by Johnson's distorted
presentation of it, then of *course* Johnson seems to be a light of
reason among the folly. However, if you're truly familiar with the
theory, and not many people are, it's clear that it's actually the
other way around.
Go for it -- present what you think is one of Johnson's best arguments
against evolution. We await enlightenment.
Steve Carlip
>The Big Bang is intelligent science and internally consistent (so far).
>The reason I don't buy it is that it's 99+% ad hoc, i.e. modern-day
>epicycles.
Could you be more specific? What ad hoc assumptions do you think
are made?
In particular, do you think relativity is "ad hoc"? If not, start
with general relativity, add the observation that the universe is
nearly uniform (homogeneous and isotropic) on large scales and that
matter is observed to have positive energy. That's all you need to
get out the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker solutions, i.e., the big bang.
And you end up with *explanations* for the cosmic microwave background,
the cosmological red shift, and the abundance of light elements. This
strikes me as being the very opposite of ad hoc.
Steve Carlip
car...@dirac.ucdavis.edu
Dan Day
>[ Posted on 6 Mar 1994 07:46:18 GMT ]
>>C'ists? This is a call for help.
>I'll go help them. Unless, of course, you are afraid of the facts
>messing up your pre-conceived conclusions.
Not at all. Feel free to post one. So far in this thread you've
relied on assertions and generalities. I await your powerful
facts. Let's get our hands dirty.
>I'm sure some people will
>just laugh at this, so I'll explain why--the difference betweem me and
>such people is that my info of both groups of "experts" as well as their
>"science" is first hand, whereas that of of pro-evolution-programmed
>robots is almost entirely heresay.
Wonderful. Feel free to present some of this first-hand knowledge
of science.
>>I have read the How Not to Argue with Creationist (or something like that)
>>FAQ. How about a How _TO_ Argue with a Creationist FAQ.
>If it's as dishonest as the former it will be about as useful. I'll
>write one if you'd like.
Examples of dishonesty, please?
>Again, I would simply disagree simly because it is a bold-faced lie.
Proof by assertion. Sorry, your submission is rejected.
>> Their consistent tactic is to present as "scientific evidence for creation"
>> what are no more thancriticisms of existing scientific theories."
>
>AGAIN!, what can be said other that to challenge someone to support such
>dishonest statements.
Well, you might try to offer a counterexample.
>If I thought he deserved it, I could grab a number
>of books a few feet away from me right now and show literally thousands
>of cases where "creationsists" present things in such a professional
>scientific way that evolutionists would get a headache from being froced
>to think objectively upon reading it.
Please. Oh, please. Deflating someone's overblown trust in creationist
sources is one of my hobbies. In return, surely you would appreciate
the chance to give me "a headache from being froced [sic] to think
objectively".
>Talk about selective research!! Sure, creationists believe the Bible,
>but that serves as no more than a place to give them ideas which they
>then go and research scientifically.
An example of this scientific research, please?
>In fact, a method of research which
>is as scientifically respectable as anyone could request is seen more
>among creationists than those scientists in __ANY__ field where research
>is done, for example, at UCLA, and I say this based on first hand
>knowledge of each.
Example, please?
> About Gould: Read Philip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial". This is
>specifially useful for the layman since he's a genius law professor at
>Berkely who doesn't approach this issue from the angle of arguing about
>the scientific questions.
There's a sub-thread going on about Johnson right now, but here I'll
mention that calling him "a genius law professor" is a blatant appeal
to authority, and one that is widely disputed at that.
As for not arguing the science questions, that's like examining the
Big Bang without bothering with physics.
>He simple shows tha absolutely illogical
>reasoning used by "evolutionists".
Examples? I've seen Johnson demonstrate the illogic in straw men
he has constructed that bear little resemblance to the science he's
supposedly examining.
>Three whole chapters are devoted to
>Gould, who Johnson quite literally shows to be a total idiot. Go read it
>if you don't believe me and then tell me what you think.
Examples? Also, you might want to look up the definitions of the words
"literally" and "idiot", because your claim as written is trivially
false.
>>Isaac Asimov, "The Threat of Creationism," New York Times Magazine, Jun.14 '81
>>N. Eldredge, "The Monkey Business"
>I've NEVER heard a single scientist give Asimov any respect. He doesn't
>deserve it and his inclusion just makes this whole book list look
>suspect.
1. I have heard scientists give Asimov "any respect". I just love
your penchant for absolutes, it makes it so easy to reveal you as
someone who thinks in black-and-white terms. While scientists on
occasion have griped about Asimov simplifying some of the science he
presents to the point of being somewhat misleading, that's the nature of
writing popular presentations of science for a general audience. I've
never heard Asimov accused of any serious lapse of judgement or knowledge.
As for deserving respect, how do you account for the enormous numbers of
tributes presented for him as eulogies after his recent death?
If by saying you've never heard a single scientist give him any respect
you mean *creation* scientists, this does not surprise me, as Asimov
roasted them on high heat rather frequently. It's common to disrespect
someone who points out your flaws, for the uncomfortable alternative is
to consider that perhaps they may be right.
2. Even if, as you claim, no one respected Asimov, that is still not
a valid dismissal of the article referenced above. Even fools can be
right on occasion. Therefore, you have no grounds to dismiss "his inclusion
on this list" as "suspect" unless you've examined the article in question.
Thank you for presenting such a nice example of the ad hominem fallacy.
>>For a sure cure for the creationist b.s., read their own literature:
>>H.M. Morris & J.C. Whitcomb,"The Genesis Flood."
>Again, that's a dishonest representation of creationism. Creationists
>are putting more effort out these days to let everyone know what an
>idiot Morris is than they are in any other issue.
It depends on which creationists you talk to, of course. We still get
waves of people here on talk.origins spouting Morris verbatim.
>>D.T. Gish, "Evolution: The Fossils Say NO!"
>Actually, that book quite irrefutably show the absolute emptiness in the
>argument for evolution from the fossil record.
*snort*. First you call Morris an idiot, then you treat Gish with
respect? Gish is worse than Morris, on the whole. Feel free to
present what you consider Gish's best argument, we'll show you
where it falls on its face. We'll try to be gentle, since this
is your first time.
>Although it is only fair
>to say, that the fossil record is the weakest area for evolutionists,
>except of course for the whole Bin-Bang-Bull.
The Big Bang, eh? Please try to explain how the Big Bang has *any*
relevance to evolution. The evidence that the Earth is old enough
for evolution to take place as described existed long before the Big
Bang was formulated. The Big Bang itself has no implications for
evolution one way or another. Please don't bring up the old argument
about the Big Bang being the "evolutionary" theory of the galaxies,
since the kind of "evolution" (change) involved in the cosmology of
the Big Bang has nothing (zero, nada) to do with the kind of "evolution"
(changing traits via replication and natural selection) involved in life.
The fact that the same word is used for both is an unfortunate accident.
>BTW, the title is
>"Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record".
Um, Brian? Gish has written more than one book.
>Well, although Asimov is know for being a compulsive liar
Support, please?
>so and think about it (oh, I'm sorry to have asked evolutionists to
>think about something. I hope it doesn't hurt).
And you're an arrogant insulting pinhead, as well? Make an argument,
don't indulge in slander, or we'll consider the source.
>> The controversy arises
>> when one interpretation is put forth as indisputable "fact" when it is only
>> one person's opinion.
>
>Yeah, I hate the way evolutionists do that.
Except, of course, that scientists in general don't confuse their facts
with their interpretations. In science, the distinctions between the
two are clear. Feel free to argue otherwise, if you can.
Examples are welcome, assertions are not.
Warren vonRoeschlaub
In article <2ldqf5$g...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bk...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie
Thomas) writes:
>In a previous article, kv...@iastate.edu (Warren vonRoeschlaub) says:
>> But let's be generous. Name a single logical flaw that puts evolution (or
>>the Big Bang since you seem to prefer that one) in jeopardy.
>
>
>Hmmm. I can't speak for Johnson, and I don't know any "logical
>fallacies" which put "evolution" in jeopardy, but some related
>points do come to mind....
>
>1. It is illogical to claim that small changes over small time
>periods can be validly extrapolated to large changes over large
>time periods.
Um, but we do have the data points over long time periods. It's
commonly referred to as "the fossil record".
>2. It's plain silly to claim that "nothing in biology makes sense
>without evolution."
In what way? Without evolution you cannot explain most of the
attributes of creatures, the existance of vestigial organs, microbiology
get's a rough treatment, DNA analysis is nearly meaningless, heck, name
a biological study unaffected by evolution? Even agriculture requires
it.
--
Warren vonRoeschlaub
In article <2ldspl$k...@news.mic.ucla.edu>, ru...@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian
Rush ) writes:
>In article <2ldn5c$m...@news.iastate.edu> kv...@iastate.edu (Warren
>vonRoeschlaub) writes:
>>the Big Bang since you seem to prefer that one) in jeopardy.
>
>The reason I don't buy it is that it's 99+% ad hoc, i.e. modern-day
>epicycles.
But even epicycles were better than no theory. Do you have a theory that
explains the data as well as the Big Bang theory? And in what way is it not
ad hoc?
> What's puzzling is that in areas of science that don't
>touch on the C-E controversy, a similarly supported theory would be
>met with much more suspicion.
Excuse me? What relm of science doesn't touch on the C-E contorversy?
Didn't you notice that creationism pretty much throws out data from every
branch of science? Even computer science, which is really more of a math.
> Why give Evolution-realted theories
>special treatment?
What are you talking about? Name a single theory that explains any of
the data (even if it is more ad hoc than the Big Bang) that is incosistant
with evolution?
Let's face it: even if you tossed out the Big Bang model (and every
other scientific alternative) you would still have a significant amout of
evidence the universe is older than YEC's admit.
> And why don't evolutionists sign their names?
Because they recently "upgraded" the newsreader here and for some reason
I can't get it to acknowledge my .sig file anymore. My name is at the
beginning of the post if you really want to know it, so what is
the big deal?
--
Wade Hines
> lip...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>>I still see no evidence here that you've read it at all, let alone
>>"several times." Please produce a quotation to substantiate your
>>charge that it contains "lies" of any kind, or retract your statement
>>and apologize for your unfounded accusations of dishonesty.
>>
>>From what you've said so far, I would be surprised if you can even
>>summarize what the article is about.
>Well, be surprised: it talks all about various things that
>evolutionists have said that weren't honest or weren't accurate
>or were somehow weak, and which were then often exposed as such. You
>then quite responisbly (and to anyone who reads t.o quite shockingly)
Baugh! Speak not of what you know so little. Anybody remember the heat
when a certain Bill posted some crap about the air being too thin up
high if there had been a flood to the top of Everest? The flames were
definately worse than anything else I've seen (except one particularly
fine job Deaddog cross-posted to alt.usenet.kooks) I take great umbrage
at crappy science and even more so at people who don't understand evolution
abusing it to promote some agenda - such as the misguided notion that it
proves that there is no god. It doesn't and can't.
So save your shock. t.o generates quite a bit of internal heat in beating
each other up to get things right. It's almost like science that way.
--Wade
Brian Rush
>This has me baffled. The Big Bang was received with a great deal of
>skepticism, at least some small part of which was because it sounded too
>much like a creation event. What I'm really having trouble with is
>coming up with a branch of science that has *less* to do with evolution
>than does the Big Bang? What do you mean?
I see how that was confusing. What I meant was that the Big Bang often
comes up in dicussions of Evolution-vs-Creation because it has something
to say about long vs. short time scales and because some claim that it
implies that there is no God. I wasn't commenting on any similar
physical mechanisms between biology and the Big Bang, just that they
often come up in the same discussion and that people try to relate them
philosophically.
-Brian
Michael S. Robinson
>In article <2led23$m...@bigblue.oit.unc.edu> rupr...@physics.unc.edu (Mark Rupright) writes:
>>BTW there is no C-E 'controversy' among scientists. You seem to admire the
>>CRS as being more scientific that UCLA physicists. Surely you have heard
>>of the CRS's declaration of belief in Genesis creation which their
>>'scientists' must sign before they join? Would you call that attitude
>>scientific? Can you name any other 'research' organization which requires
>>their members to declare their belief in an outcome before the research is
>>even done? (Give specifics, don't say 'evolutionists' or UCLA physicists).
>That's intersting, you want to allow accurate answers...
>The CRS has that clause to protect them from worms, and don't think that
>a number of people haven't tried. Even so, I'm surprised that you cant'
>see how such a statement doesn't have to prevent someone from doing
>honest science.
Such a statement makes it utterly impossible to do honest science. If the
results of one's research flatly contridict creationism then the researcher
cannot honestly report that data and be honest and consistent with the sworn
pledge. Promising to find only those results consistent with a preconcieved
conclusion is completely at odds with honest science.
>I guarntee you that if UCLA was about to hire a new
>physics prof that was super qualified so much that they were just
>drooling over it ('it' takes less letter then he/she for this PC world),
>they would withdrawal the offer immediately without even asking for
>details if it said it didn't believe in the BB.
>
>-Brian
--
Michael S. Robinson
UAB Birmingham AL
mro...@phy.uab.edu
Brian Rush
You're missing the whole point and my guess is that it's intentionall.
Sure the BB predicted various observations, but that doesn't NECESSARILY
make a theory stronger. Most of it's predictions were general. Also,
many predictions have been made and if one turned out to be right then
people immediately forgot all the other predictions. E.G., dozens of
people predicted that COBE would find various spectra, based on their
different calculations from BB models. It was pretty likely that one of
them would be right and when one was people acted as though they made
the only prediction. It's like being overwhelmed at the million-to-one
odds of some Joe Smith winning the lottery and concluding that his
method for picking numbers must be right, when in fact someone had to
win the lottery.
-Brian
Henling, Lawrence M.
>What I was TRYING to say from the beginning was related to general
>issues of research procedure and scientific honesty.
Were you favorably comparing the ICR and other Creationists to the
scientific community in this regard? That is the impression I received
from your earlier posts.
larry henling
l...@shakes.caltech.edu
Brian Rush
The original 'I have it' statement was a general careless comment. And I
didn't delete--did you ever hear of hardcopies? And I'm surprised that
you've never read anything in your life that you can now remember the
general points of accurately without remembering any details. If so,
then your mind works in a very rare way.
-Brian
Wade Hines
>Hmmm. I can't speak for Johnson, and I don't know any "logical
>fallacies" which put "evolution" in jeopardy, but some related
>points do come to mind....
>1. It is illogical to claim that small changes over small time
>periods can be validly extrapolated to large changes over large
>time periods.
I won't try to convince you of the logic of the claim - but how
about the logic or the result. Maybe you object to it being
obvious but the ability to make big changes from little changes
and selection is documented.
>2. It's plain silly to claim that "nothing in biology makes sense
>without evolution."
Please explain the sense of the leftover rememnats of legs in whales - or
for that matter why aquatic animals would breath air? It needs evolution
to make sense to me.
--Wade
Wade Hines
>In <hexisCM...@netcom.com> he...@netcom.com (James C. Harrison) writes:
>>In re Darwin on Trial. I can't believe anybody who has actually read this
>>little gem could take it seriously.
>agreed.
>>The author reminds me of one of those
>>advanced social construction of reality types
>>who thinks that nature is
>Oh, dear. I am one of those "social construction of reality types" --
>perhaps I am just not advanced enough for your purposes (FWIW, Johnson
>is likely to be even more violently negative about sociological depend-
>encies in our world views than he is about evolution. Think about it;
>please.)
Is this just cross talk or what? Do you actually believe that what we
think has any bearing on what reality is? That is the objection to
social construction of reality or Jeffersonian Physics. There is no
point in getting scientists to vote for what they like best because
their vote doesn't change anything.
>>whatever we all decide it is.
>Ah; so nature is what we (e.g. researchers in biological and physical
>science) *don't* decide it is? I'm confused; do you want to help me out?
Nature is what it is and if you are carefull and thoughtful you may
be able to figure it out. But what other people think doesn't matter
one whit.
--Wade
Brian Rush
making a claim. One way to say it is that I implicity asked BEFORE you
posted for someone to give a not-ad hoc element of the BB. And read my
last post (maybe the very one before this) about online specifics.
-Brian
Tim Thompson
>
>You're missing the whole point and my guess is that it's intentionall.
>Sure the BB predicted various observations, but that doesn't NECESSARILY
>make a theory stronger. Most of it's predictions were general. Also,
>many predictions have been made and if one turned out to be right then
>people immediately forgot all the other predictions. E.G., dozens of
>people predicted that COBE would find various spectra, based on their
>different calculations from BB models. It was pretty likely that one of
>them would be right and when one was people acted as though they made
>the only prediction. It's like being overwhelmed at the million-to-one
>odds of some Joe Smith winning the lottery and concluding that his
>method for picking numbers must be right, when in fact someone had to
>win the lottery.
>
I can't think of even ONE person, let alone dozens, who predicted
anything other than a black body spectrum. Can you enlighten me with
reference to the appropriate papers?
I can't think of anyone who suggested that the statistical distribution
of temperature anamolies over the whole sky would be anything other than
Harrison-Zeldovich. Once again, can you provide a reference or two?
I can remember that Alpher, Bethe & Gamow predicted a reclic black body
background radiation field long before it was actually detected by Penzias
and Wilson. Doesn't this count as a supporting prediction?
You dismiss the big-bang as ad-hoc, despite the fact that it is
completely consistent with observation, and was a tool for making predictions
before they were observed, for both the cosmic background, and for the COBE
results; in both cases not "dozens" of predictions, but only one. Yet, at
the same time you offer no clues as to (a) which observations are not
consistent with big-bang, (b) what would a better theory look like, in
either general or specific terms, or (c) which current competeing theory
you personally prefer.
Finally, just out of personal curiosity and a nosy attitude, what was
you thesis topic, and where did you obtain your Ph.D.?
---
------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Thompson, Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Planetary Atmospheres Group, Earth & Space Sci. Div., JPL
Board of Directors, Los Angeles Astronomical Society.
Vice President, Mount Wilson Observatory Association.
INTERnet/BITnet: t...@scn2.jpl.nasa.gov
NSI/DECnet: jplsc8::tim
SCREAMnet: YO!! TIM!!
GPSnet: 118:10:22.85 W by 34:11:58.27 N
Tim Ikeda
Now, Brian Rush, what about evolutionary biology? Are we going
to discuss science now?
- Tim Ikeda (ti...@mendel.berkeley.edu)
James G. Acker
: I think we're just talking about different things. Sure, the BB agrees
: with various observations, but it (meaning the spedifics) was made to do
: so with the observations in hand. The ability of a 'theory' to predict
The temperature of the cosmic background radiation -- just
under 3 Kelvin -- was predicted BEFORE Arno and Penzias recognized
what they were measuring. Their measured temperature agreed with the
previously-predicted temperature. This Nobel-prize winning observation
was the pole vault that put the Big Bang into the Big Time.
Specifying the temperature to 1 Kelvin degree? Pretty
specific, I'd say.
: observables in a very general way isn't worth much, and the same can
: even be said of more specific predictions if those are intrinsically
: related to already-known observables, such that other theories would
: predict them also and/or they fall into the category of something had to
: be found and since everything was separately predicted at least one
: prediction would come out true.
If you can make more specific predictions after more general
predictions have been made and observationally confirmed, and these
more specific predictions are also observationally confirmed, that's
a nice demonstration of how science is done. If someone can make
a prediction that is at odds with the observed confirmations, and then
observationally confirm THAT prediction, that's how theories get
refuted.
===============================================
| James G. Acker |
| REPLY TO: jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.
James G. Acker
: honest science. I guarntee you that if UCLA was about to hire a new
: physics prof that was super qualified so much that they were just
: drooling over it ('it' takes less letter then he/she for this PC world),
: they would withdrawal the offer immediately without even asking for
: details if it said it didn't believe in the BB.
:
: -Brian
You should ask the astrophysics department if they'd like
to have Fred Hoyle on the staff. (I bet they'd grab him in a
pico-fraction of a nanosecond, which would take a little longer
given the slow rate of neural impulse transmission.)
James G. Acker
: You're missing the whole point and my guess is that it's intentionall.
: Sure the BB predicted various observations, but that doesn't NECESSARILY
: make a theory stronger. Most of it's predictions were general. Also,
: many predictions have been made and if one turned out to be right then
: people immediately forgot all the other predictions. E.G., dozens of
: people predicted that COBE would find various spectra, based on their
: different calculations from BB models. It was pretty likely that one of
: them would be right and when one was people acted as though they made
: the only prediction. It's like being overwhelmed at the million-to-one
: odds of some Joe Smith winning the lottery and concluding that his
: method for picking numbers must be right, when in fact someone had to
: win the lottery.
CBR = Cosmic Background Radiation
Brian, I suggest a quick bit of reading -- the 26 Feb 94
issue of _New Scientist_ has a four-page summary of Big Bang cosmology.
What you say above is flat-out dead wrong, and the article explains
why. But I can do it even more briefly.
1) Up to COBE, CBR observations had shown it to be essentially
"flat" -- that is, perfectly homogenous with no variability.
2) Big Bang cosmology didn't work with a perfectly flat
CBR -- some variation had to exist, for large conglomerations of matter
(galaxies ) to come into existence. I.e. the Universe is clumpy -- the CBR
was flat. With no variability in the CBR, the clumpiness could not
arise (according to the Big Bang).
Essentially, the Big Bang scenario predicted variability in the
CBR. Find it, and the Big Bang theory is _strengthened_. Measure
a perfectly-flat CBR, and the Big Bang is in serious, serious, to the
point of some cosmologists jumping into the nearest black hole, trouble.
It was virtually a yes/no question to the Big Bang.
3) COBE finds variability in the CBR. The Big Bang theory
is strengthened. Cosmologists avoid black holes. Details in the
theory are now given attention.
Any questions? Will you admit that what you said above is
incorrect and revise your statement?
L. Drew Davis
>What I was TRYING to say from the beginning was related to general
>issues of research procedure and scientific honesty. I don't want to
>talk about specifics because we know that that will get us nowhere and
>because it will take forever (and few on the net have that much time).
We've all got all that much time, or we wouldn't be reading t.o.
And if you can't support your points with specific examples,
there's little point in making them. The t.o FAQs enumerate a
number of specific problems with creationist procedure and honesty.
If you can't produce any such to support your apparent claim that the
ICR does science just as well as UCLA, why should we listen
to you? You're just waving your hands about and making assertions, which
is remarkably easy, as well as unconvincing. Relying on "what everybody
knows" is a pretty sure way to run into trouble, especially when not
everyone "knows" what you think they do.
>-Brian
Here's an assertion: UCLA does much better science than the ICR.
I don't really want to talk about specifics, though. Now, is the debate
even? If not, how do you intend to proceed? We're done with the
generalities, so proceeding to specifics or abandoning the thread
are about the only two choices.
Anthony Berno
(Brian Rush ) wrote:
> To change the subject, this brings up a question that I fear scientists
> have all sorts of answers to: IF (and I'm not saying this applies to th
> BB, so don't address that here) there is some question (anything from
> how old is the earth to why are whatchamacallists the size they are) for
> which we have no clear answer and one or a couple of vaguely outlined
> theories, what should we do? (1) adopt one of the vague theories because
> we MUST have a working explanation until/unless we find out better; or
> (2) admit that we have no great theory and live as though there is no
> accepted answer until we find a better one?
>
> -Brian
I think that most thoughtful scientists would agree that all theories are
provisional, and that we do the best we can while keeping in mind that some
theories are going to be much stronger than others. It is valuable to
construct theories on incomplete or seemingly contradictory evidence,
because such partial theories allow one to find fruitful directions for
future research. Such a theory has nothing to do with NEEDING a working
explaination - it has to do with the utility of provisional explainations.
Also, there is nothing wrong with maintaining and working with multiple
theories, even if they are contradictory. It's not as if one theory is
always held up as "correct" while others are discarded - instead, each
theory is assigned a degree of truth, and as evidence accumulates, some
theories will drop to near-zero, while others rise to near-certainty.
In short, the choice you offer is meaningless, as it completely fails to
capture the way scientists view the world.
-Anthony
L. Drew Davis
>In article <2lfg5r$l...@bigblue.oit.unc.edu> rupr...@physics.unc.edu (Mark Rupright) writes:
>>
>>BTW got an alternative to the Big Bang?
>>
>To change the subject, this brings up a question that I fear scientists
>have all sorts of answers to: IF (and I'm not saying this applies to th
>BB, so don't address that here) there is some question (anything from
>how old is the earth to why are whatchamacallists the size they are) for
>which we have no clear answer and one or a couple of vaguely outlined
>theories, what should we do? (1) adopt one of the vague theories because
>we MUST have a working explanation until/unless we find out better; or
>(2) admit that we have no great theory and live as though there is no
>accepted answer until we find a better one?
Both. In fact, it's commonly done. For that matter, you can "adopt"
multiple theories -- even multiple theories simultaneously -- while
admitting that none of them are great.
It seems that you lack a good feel for the provisional nature
of hypotheses and the operation of the scientific method. (In grade
school, I used to get irritated that they would start off every single year
by going over steps in the scientific method. It seemed so redundant.
I was wrong; they didn't repeat it enough, after all.)
>-Brian
>(Mark-before you get mad at me for changing the subject, I'll answer
>your other Qs if you send them via email; they seemed to tangential for
>the net).
Too tangential for t.o? Hahahaha. We've got time for beerolution and
whiskylution, inventing bogus universities, scoring the home game,
fooling around in alt.rush-limbaugh, large mouth bass, Velikovsky
(oops, sorry, that one was serious), deriving volumes of physical
impossibilities in vapor canopies, quoting bits of Gould and Caroll
until, statisically, the entire source must be back there somewhere,
and in between listening to creationists with new faces spout the
same old arguments. It might as well be called tangential.origins.
Feel free to debate publically; it might be a waste of my time, but
it won't be because of tangential subjects. Pure theology ought
to go in a religion group. Pure generalities ought not to be posted
anywhere unless you can back them up. But it's hard to imagine subjects
more tangential than the daily traffic here.
ALexander Lewis Wild
Brian Rush writes:
>
>The WHOLE POINT was the Johnson is more qualified than any scientist to
>disect the logic of arguments which is what his book is about (in fact
>some of his peers say he's one of the most qualified people in the world
>missed it.
>>
Very nice, Brian. What are your qualifications to discuss Johnson's book?
Oh- you're not a lawyer, you're an astrophysicist. I'm sorry, but I don't
find you qualified to make any statements. Get a law degree before you
try to make a point.
Alex Wild
--
**********************************************************************
* The above does not represent OIT, UNC-CH, laUNChpad, or its other users. *
**********************************************************************
Matthew P Wiener
>E.G., dozens of people predicted that COBE would find various
>spectra, based on their different calculations from BB models. It was
>pretty likely that one of them would be right
It's pretty likely only if the BB were true. Can you give us some
creationist's prediction of what COBE would find?
> and when one was people
>acted as though they made the only prediction. It's like being
>overwhelmed at the million-to-one odds of some Joe Smith winning the
>lottery and concluding that his method for picking numbers must be
>right, when in fact someone had to win the lottery.
Nobody has to win the lottery.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Benjamin Snowhare Franz
: The Big Bang is intelligent science and internally consistent (so far).
: The reason I don't buy it is that it's 99+% ad hoc, i.e. modern-day
: epicycles. What's puzzling is that in areas of science that don't
: touch on the C-E controversy, a similarly supported theory would be
: met with much more suspicion. Why give Evolution-realted theories
: special treatment? And why don't evolutionists sign their names?
Another general statement. Specifics please. What *in particular* do you
feel is objectionably ad hoc about the Big Bang theory (post inflationary
era of course - that section of the theory is still fairly tentative)?
--
Benjamin Franz
Brian Rush
>CBR = Cosmic Background Radiation
> Brian, I suggest a quick bit of reading -- the 26 Feb 94
>issue of _New Scientist_ has a four-page summary of Big Bang cosmology.
>What you say above is flat-out dead wrong, and the article explains
>why. But I can do it even more briefly.
> 1) Up to COBE, CBR observations had shown it to be essentially
>"flat" -- that is, perfectly homogenous with no variability.
> 2) Big Bang cosmology didn't work with a perfectly flat
>CBR -- some variation had to exist, for large conglomerations of matter
>(galaxies ) to come into existence. I.e. the Universe is clumpy -- the CBR
>was flat. With no variability in the CBR, the clumpiness could not
>arise (according to the Big Bang).
> Essentially, the Big Bang scenario predicted variability in the
>CBR. Find it, and the Big Bang theory is _strengthened_. Measure
>a perfectly-flat CBR, and the Big Bang is in serious, serious, to the
>point of some cosmologists jumping into the nearest black hole, trouble.
>It was virtually a yes/no question to the Big Bang.
> 3) COBE finds variability in the CBR. The Big Bang theory
>is strengthened. Cosmologists avoid black holes. Details in the
>theory are now given attention.
>
> Any questions? Will you admit that what you said above is
>incorrect and revise your statement?
You said nothing above that I didn't already know or that I disagree
with. In particular I appreciate the way you use and even highlight the
word 'strengthened' instead of using 'proved' like the profs here do.
-Brian
Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top
Alt.atheism regulars (and, to a lesser extent, talk.origins regulars)
will remember with fondness our late friend Michael Courtney, the
prophet from MIT playing with lasers and dabbling in flood geology. I
especially remember his, um, "unique" perspective on science. Well, it
seems we have another one. Here's Brian Rush, graduate astrophysics,
UCLA, on the Big Bang....)
Quoth ru...@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) (in <2lehoi$l...@news.mic.ucla.edu>):
#I think we're just talking about different things. Sure, the BB agrees
#with various observations, but it (meaning the spedifics) was made to do
#so with the observations in hand. The ability of a 'theory' to predict
#observables in a very general way isn't worth much, and the same can
#even be said of more specific predictions if those are intrinsically
#related to already-known observables, such that other theories would
#predict them also and/or they fall into the category of something had to
#be found and since everything was separately predicted at least one
#prediction would come out true.
I remember this overwhelming urge to have a chat with Michael Courtney's
academic adviser ("do you really allow him to play 'dragons' with
high-powered lasers?"). I feel the same urge coming over me..... maybe
I should forward this to Michael?
Geoff
--
Geoff Arnold, PC-NFS architect, Sun Select. (geoff....@East.Sun.COM)
## Sometimes what seems to be enough smoke to guarantee a robust ##
## fire is actually just a cloud of dust from a passing bandwagon. ##
## (Daniel Dennett, _Consciousness Explained_) ##
Broughton, Wayne Jeremy
(Brian Rush ) writes...
>
>
>I think we're just talking about different things. Sure, the BB agrees
>
>
Others have already pointed out that this is a misrepresentation of the
historical facts. Your basic premise seems to be that the BB theory is
just an ad hoc collection of explanations for a variety of observational
data; you compared it to the ever-multiplying epicycles of Ptolemaic
astronomy. Incidentally, this actually seems to be representative of
much of the Creationist "theory" that is presented: ad hoc explanations
without a coherent rational whole. (Of course, there is no point in my
providing specific examples to justify my assertion; we don't have time for
that. :-) ) And FWIW, the same charge has been levelled at excessively
imaginative Darwinian histories that try to explain some odd biological
feature. The key question, of course, is whether each new ad hoc
attachment to the theory can be tested independently.
To emphasize what others have said, the BB does not seem to have this
problem. Its basic fact is an inevitable consequence of general
relativity (and some observations). I think it would require an ad hoc
assumption to explain why the BB *didn't* occur in an alternative model.
It's predictions for the relative abundance of the light elements and the
existence and temperature of the background radiation follow from our
knowledge of particle physics; they are emphatically not ad hoc assumptions.
In fact the original "ad hoc" assumption that primordial nucleosynthesis
accounted for all of the elements had to be abandoned when calculations
showed that it could not. The only "ad hoc" sort of assumptions I can
think of are perhaps those used in GUT theories (inflationary expansion,
maybe?), and maybe some in galactic evolution (I don't know much about
what is done there).
So I would counter your unsupported assertion with my own (very weakly
supported) assertion: the standard BB theory is NOT ad hoc in any
of its major details.
I think the comparison with Ptolemaic astronomy is quite poor.
Astronomy went through a series of less and less ad hoc and more and
more accurate theories (Ptolemaic, Copernican, Keplerian, Newtonian);
as I understand it, the history of BB theory has not really been like
this at all.
**********************************************************************
Wayne J. Broughton "A little rudeness and disrespect can
wayn...@romeo.caltech.edu elevate a meaningless interaction to a
battle of wills and add drama to an
otherwise dull day." Calvin, to Hobbes
We now return you to your regularly scheduled program...
Broughton, Wayne Jeremy
(Brian Rush ) writes...
>I see how that was confusing. What I meant was that the Big Bang often
>comes up in dicussions of Evolution-vs-Creation because it has something
>to say about long vs. short time scales and because some claim that it
>implies that there is no God. I wasn't commenting on any similar
>physical mechanisms between biology and the Big Bang, just that they
>often come up in the same discussion and that people try to relate them
>philosophically.
>
>-Brian
>
have you heard of Hugh Ross and his TV show "Reason to Believe"? He
seems to be a real astronomer or astrophysicist who demonstrates actual
knowledge of scientific cosmology. His basic premise is that the BB
virtually *proves* the existence of God, and that only atheistic,
materialist astronomers could fail to see this. (I may be taking some
liberty in my representation of his views).
Of course, this supports your idea that this makes BB relevant to the
"E-C" controversy, or more comprehensively, the "origins" controversy.
(The public controversy, of course; I am not supposing there is a serious
scientific one!)
Bill Gascoyne
> >It's like being
> >overwhelmed at the million-to-one odds of some Joe Smith winning the
> >lottery and concluding that his method for picking numbers must be
> >right, when in fact someone had to win the lottery.
If I'm not mistaken, here in California most people (and hence most winners)
opt for a "quick pick" in which the number is randomly generated by the computer
that prints the tickets.
Bill Gascoyne -----
LSI Logic Corp. LSI |LOGIC|
1501 McCarthy Blvd. | |
MS E-197 -----
Milpitas, CA 95035 addr: gascan@asic internet: gas...@lsil.com
Bob Barstead, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, 825 N.E. 13th Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73104 (barsteadr@omrf.uokhsc.edu)
felt compelled to post until now.
>In article <2ldqf5$g...@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,
>Julie Thomas <bk...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
>>
>>In a previous article, kv...@iastate.edu (Warren vonRoeschlaub)
says:
>>
>>> But let's be generous. Name a single logical flaw that puts
evolution (or
>>>the Big Bang since you seem to prefer that one) in jeopardy.
>>
>>Hmmm. I can't speak for Johnson, and I don't know any "logical
>>fallacies" which put "evolution" in jeopardy, but some related
>>points do come to mind....
>>
>>1. It is illogical to claim that small changes over small time
>>periods can be validly extrapolated to large changes over large
>>time periods.
What's led me to this post is not that this particular
creationist argument is especially compelling, but that the
accumulated effect of many creationist statements has lead to a
very large effect on my generally uncontentious nature. Neither
do I want to address the formal logic of the statement, as I'm sure
others in this newsgroup are far more capable in regards to the
formal logic. On the face of it, however, it seems difficult to
avoid the conclusion that the accumulation of many small changes
CAN lead to large changes. I'll grant, however, that I may be
confused by the terms "large," "small," and "changes." More on
that below.
What I do want to address is the nature of this argument since
I've seen this "style" many times before in this forum. Question -
Do creationists wake up in the morning after many months of long,
hard, deep contemplation (I'll give them the benefit of the doubt
here) and say to themselves, "Ah Ha! I've finally solved the
problem. My ideas are going to blow the evilutionsists right off
the map." I've lost track of the number of times that creationists
have said to me, "Oh, by the way, did you know that evolution
violates thermodynamics." The argument
>>1. It is illogical to claim that small changes over small time
>>periods can be validly extrapolated to large changes over large
>>time periods.
falls into this same category. Even after all this time I am still
astonished when creationists posit such trivial refutations of the
science and logic of evolution. Do they think that they are
dealing with idiots? (Don't answer that one). Do they think that
all of science is going to crumble when they, the enlightened few,
are finally heard above the noise of the dimwitted, atheistic
rabble? Are there any creationists out there that see the futility
of this approach?
Now to some questions for the author of this post. What
exactly DO you mean by the terms "large," "small," and "changes."
I can cite many examples in present day developmental biology where
changes in a SINGLE gene is observed to lead to profound changes in
body morphology or behavior. Since only a single gene is involved,
would you consider this a small change? (No, I don't want to get
into arguments about fitness here). Perhaps if you consider your
position more concretely and quantitatively, in terms of genotype,
phenotype, and the molecules and developmental processes involved,
we can have a more meaningful discussion of this issue.
Bob Barstead
Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation
bars...@omrf.uokhsc.edu
Bill Anderson
: In article <6MAR1994...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lip...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
: >In article <2lc9d1$5...@news.csus.edu>, davi...@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Daniel Davidson) writes...
: >>[ Article crossposted from alt.fan.rush-limbaugh ]
: >>[ Author was Brian Rush ]
: >>[ Posted on 6 Mar 1994 07:46:18 GMT ]
: >>
: >>>I have read the How Not to Argue with Creationist (or something like that)
: >>>FAQ. How about a How _TO_ Argue with a Creationist FAQ.
: >>If it's as dishonest as the former it will be about as useful. I'll
: >>write one if you'd like.
: >
: >As the author of the "How Not to Argue with Creationists" FAQ, I challenge
: >Mr. Rush to point out a single example of dishonesty in it. I suspect
: >that Mr. Rush has not even read it, nor even knows how to locate a copy.
: >
: >If Mr. Rush cannot substantiate his statement, I strongly urge him to
: >retract it. I consider it to be libelous. And if I am right that
: >Mr. Rush has not read it, then I consider *his* statement to be dishonest.
: I have it and I have read it several times. The lies in it are not along
: the lines of statements of scientific points, but the implications that
: creationists are less reasonable in their discussions than are
: evolutionists. Both camps have all possible examples in them is what's
: really the case.
The essential difference, though, is that creationists begin by
assuming that the Bible is literally correct, and then look for
evidence to support their case, while evolutionists (theoretically;
I'm certainly not arguing that there are no bad scientists in the
world, or that science can be completely objective) are merely
looking for evidence of the truth, and would be prepared to abandon
evolution if the evidence weighed in against it. Would Mr. Rush
like to describe a circumstance in which he would be willing to
abandon his faith in divine creation?
Bill
evolution if the evidence weighed in against it. Would Mr. Ri
Bill Anderson
: In a previous article, kv...@iastate.edu (Warren vonRoeschlaub) says:
: > But let's be generous. Name a single logical flaw that puts evolution (or
: >the Big Bang since you seem to prefer that one) in jeopardy.
: Hmmm. I can't speak for Johnson, and I don't know any "logical
: fallacies" which put "evolution" in jeopardy, but some related
: points do come to mind....
: 1. It is illogical to claim that small changes over small time
: periods can be validly extrapolated to large changes over large
: time periods.
Who claims this?
: 2. It's plain silly to claim that "nothing in biology makes sense
: without evolution."
I'm not a scientist, and I don't even play one on TV, but my
understanding is that all of contemporary biology is inextricably
intertwined with evolutionary theory, and that if the latter were
shown to be incorrect, then the former would have to be rebuilt
from the ground up. That's probably what your quote (who said
it?) means.
: Just my two pennies...
Won't even buy you a stick of gum anymore.
Bill
M.James 2-3803
>To change the subject, this brings up a question that I fear scientists
>have all sorts of answers to: IF (and I'm not saying this applies to th
>BB, so don't address that here) there is some question (anything from
>how old is the earth to why are whatchamacallists the size they are) for
>which we have no clear answer and one or a couple of vaguely outlined
>theories, what should we do? (1) adopt one of the vague theories because
>we MUST have a working explanation until/unless we find out better; or
>(2) admit that we have no great theory and live as though there is no
>accepted answer until we find a better one?
IF someone is confronted with a hypothetical question that lacks a
clear answer should one (1) try to change the question so it gives
a clear answer or (2) Ignore it completely.
Going back to your question.
Let's try:
(3) Adopt a tentative framework that allows us (as scientists) to TEST
possible explanations.
Maybe this looks like (1) to you, but as someone who does research,
it seems important to me to test a fairly specific question. Just
gathering data will-nilly with no hypothesis doesn't get you very far.
--
Michael R. James ja...@falhrd.msd.anl.gov
"Ludwig Boltzmann, who spent much of his life studying statistical
mechanics, died in 1906, by his own hand. Paul Ehrenfest, carrying
on the work, died similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study
statistical mechanics."
-David L. Goodstein "States of Matter"
James G. Acker
: In article <2lg1he$d...@paperboy.gsfc.nasa.gov> jga...@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
: >CBR = Cosmic Background Radiation
: Funny.
{deleted summary of COBE mission}
: > Any questions? Will you admit that what you said above is
: >incorrect and revise your statement?
:
: You said nothing above that I didn't already know or that I disagree
: with. In particular I appreciate the way you use and even highlight the
: word 'strengthened' instead of using 'proved' like the profs here do.
What I objected to in your original statement was to this effect:
"Numerous people made predictions about what COBE would see based on BB
theory, and when it was found, they acted like they were the only one
that made a prediction." I think you actually said "predicted
various spectra". One, no specific spectra were predicted, and two,
the main thing that was being searched for was variability, which
everyone who supported the Big Bang wanted to see. So essentially
everyone who supported the Big Bang "predicted" variability in the
CBR. Thus, there was near unanimity that the prediction had been
observed. It wasn't a case of lots of people being wrong and one
being right.
I may have misunderstood your point due to unclear word
emphasis. If so, sorry 'bout that.
Dave Knapp
>In article <drewd.7...@cc.gatech.edu> dr...@terminus.gatech.edu (L. Drew Davis) writes:
>> Just out of curiousity, do you have any actual scientific points to
>>make, or are you just going to cut straight to the sort of "I'm so
>>mistreated" meta-argument that creationists usually adopt after
>>having their intial ill-conceived foray blown out of the ether?
>
>What I was TRYING to say from the beginning was related to general
>issues of research procedure and scientific honesty. I don't want to
>talk about specifics because we know that that will get us nowhere and
>because it will take forever (and few on the net have that much time).
Translation: I want to make general accusations about scientific
honesty without ever having to provide any actual evidence. It's a lot
easier that way, since evidence is hard to deal with.
How can you even THINK about discussion of honesty without specific
examples? Put up or shut up.
-- Dave
--
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
* David Knapp d...@imager.llnl.gov (510) 422-1023 *
* 98.7% of all statistics are made up. *
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
James J. Lippard
:In article <7MAR1994...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lip...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
:>Unless you deleted your copy of "How Not to Argue with Creationists"
:>between the time you posted the article containing the first underlined
:>phrase and your most recent followup, it looks like you've made at least
:>one false statement in our exchange.
:>
:>Your summary is still incredibly vague, and displays no knowledge of the
:>content of my article which couldn't be gleaned merely from the title.
:>(Nevertheless, I will accept your claim to have read it in the past--but
:>you clearly do not remember it well enough to be warranted in accusing
:>me of dishonesty!)
:>
:>The claim that my article contains "misrepresentations of the genuineness
:>of some creationists in certain cases, very similar to the things you
:>were criticizing the other evolutionists for" is not entirely clear to me.
:>Do you mean by this that I misrepresented some creationists in the same
:>way that the evolutionists I criticized had done? If so, you are quite
:>mistaken. I will email you a copy of the article, after which I will
:>expect you to apologize and retract your hasty and ill-conceived
:>accusations.
:
:The original 'I have it' statement was a general careless comment. And I
:didn't delete--did you ever hear of hardcopies? And I'm surprised that
:you've never read anything in your life that you can now remember the
:general points of accurately without remembering any details. If so,
:then your mind works in a very rare way.
Thank you very much!
Now that you have copies of both "How Not to Argue with Creationists"
and "How Not to Respond to Criticism: Barry Price Compounds His Errors,"
I would appreciate it if you would now retract your other "general
careless comments"--your unsupported allegations of my dishonesty.
Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lip...@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Matthew P Wiener
>To emphasize what others have said, the BB does not seem to have this
>problem. Its basic fact is an inevitable consequence of general
>relativity (and some observations).
Indeed, Einstein's a priori rejection of BB was, as he admitted, his
greatest mistake.
> I think it would require an ad hoc
>assumption to explain why the BB *didn't* occur in an alternative model.
Exactly!
>Its predictions for the relative abundance of the light elements and the
>existence and temperature of the background radiation follow from our
>knowledge of particle physics; they are emphatically not ad hoc assumptions.
And both measurements have been quite stunning confirmations.
>In fact the original "ad hoc" assumption that primordial nucleosynthesis
>accounted for all of the elements had to be abandoned when calculations
>showed that it could not.
Although Gamow made some ingenious efforts. I still recall fondly his
picture of bridging the 7?-nucleon gap in one of his intro books.
> The only "ad hoc" sort of assumptions I can
>think of are perhaps those used in GUT theories (inflationary expansion,
>maybe?), and maybe some in galactic evolution (I don't know much about
>what is done there).
Guess what: inflation is not ad hoc. It follows pretty much automatically
from the GR solutions. What is ad hoc is picking this or that inflation
scheme, based on various symmetry breaking assumptions, but the basic idea
is pretty much inescapable.
Matthew P Wiener
>Thanks for the VERY selective editing which changed the emphasis of my
>whole post and made your reply look much better. What happened to the
>next sentence or two?
What happened to all the specific examples that indicate you know what
you are talking about, as opposed to all the hot air you keep expelling?
Michael Siemon
(Wade Hines) writes:
>>Oh, dear. I am one of those "social construction of reality types" --
>Is this just cross talk or what? Do you actually believe that what we
>think has any bearing on what reality is? That is the objection to
>social construction of reality or Jeffersonian Physics. There is no
>point in getting scientists to vote for what they like best because
>their vote doesn't change anything.
You seem to be without a clue what is meant by "the social construction
of reality." Since your concern is evident (you sent me this same bit
in email) and since a couple others emailed me laboring under the same
misconception, I suppose I should take a few paragraphs to explain.
Let us stipulate that there is a "reality" independent of human beings.
With minor quibbles (e.g., *our* reality *does* contain human beings, so
the putative "independence" is not necessarily absolute; cf. the so-called
"anthropic principle" -- but please note, also, that I have recently cocked
a cynical eyebrow in that general direction, so don't presume to infer what
I do and do not believe about the dependencies of reality on humanity), I
agree with this stipulation. I can't think of any sociologists, starting
with Peter Berger[*], who would disagree with this stipulation. Social
construction is NOT any kind of "denial" of reality.
---
[*] I fear that it is not unneccessary to observe that it is *his* 1966
book with Thomas Luckmann that coins the term and is the inception of the
"theoretical" study of this in sociology -- scare quotes by virtue of my
(serious) reservations about anything in sociological work (which I value)
that counts as theory (as I understand it from my physical and biological
science background.)
---
You can only "contradict" social constructionism if you are prepared to
argue that what scientists know *is* reality -- absolutely and without
the mediation of any human symbology. In other words, you'd have to be
committed to a position that science deals, on an everyday basis, with
pure, unmediated reality. Behold: hier ist das Ding an Sich. But in
fact, science deals with *models* -- human constructs out of human concepts
organized (and competing with alternate models) on the basis of certain
priorities of *value* in the scientific community. None of this is nasty
and dismissive of those values -- they have been important to me since I
first started encountering them in a "popular science" context in grade
school, forty years ago.
The investigative values of the scientific community (or communities)
are embodied and transmitted in the classrooms, the textbooks, and the
popularizations of science, as well as directly in the laboratory and
the refereed journals. These values are strongly prioritized -- above
all else, a compelling *demonstration* of hypotheses from a plethora
of data, given in a context that minimizes subjectivity, reigns supreme.
A smidgeon below that (and possibly prevailing if the data are less
than overwhelming or the demonstration is a bit shaky), values of economy
or aesthetics [another can of value-worms] may dominate -- and there are
LOTS of little values than can trip one up (like, not making one's advisor
look bad at conferences :-))
All of this means that those *in* or on the periphery of the scientific
community (and others who identify more or less strongly with it) will
*put together* an internal "map" that matches up lots of their ordinary
lives [which is what sociologists mostly mean by reality :-)] against
those shared values and concepts.
Intensely evangelical Christianity has a quite different social nexus
than graduate work in science (which I take to be the current locus
of the "purest" form of scientific community.) First of all, the most
dominant value is "Salvation" and the specific *personal* participations
needed to "secure" that. And instead of the laboratory, the social form
that MATTERS is the church or prayer meeting. Affirmation there *is*
success -- just as much as the publishing of a paper under your name,
which is then cited in later literature *is* success in science. The
highest priority goes to "faith" -- specifically when "tested" by the
"hostile" world. These people do not devalue truth -- they will, quite
correctly claim that it is very important to them -- but it must seem
so to a scientific valuation, as the SUBJECTIVE truth is overwhelmingly
more important than an "objectivity" which they regard as a snare and
a delusion. They quite literally take *ordinary* data as a trap laid
by the Devil, who is constantly occupied in tempting THEM (each one of
them being a major project of this fiend.) Yet, they are compelled by
their number 2 priority to "witness" to an unbelieving world. I find
it hard to tell, in most cases, whether the fact of their witnessing
being rejected is more satisfying to this need than any possible success.
"Failure" in practical terms is excellent "evidence" of one's being a
"martyr" -- and hence almost guaranteed of a place in heaven.
That picture is a caricature (though all too many Creationists come
very close) of Christian doctrine. What it illustrates is that VALUES
dominate the process by which one puts one's world together in one's
mind. When someone from a scientific community faces Creationists, it
is the simplest thing in the world to dismiss them as fraudulent and
incapable of carrying out the LEAST bit of what science takes to be of
importance. And they ARE, if not incapable, basically not interested.
The reality that the Creationists are INTENDING to face is one of testing
by God and (they hope and pray) survival of that test. The world around
them is just background scenery for this "reality." And that is a kind
of "reality" which is irrelevant-to-nonexistent for a scientific community.
Which leads to incredible frustrations if the two "realities" collide.
For a large number of evangelically-minded Christians, there *is* no
collision. They simply avoid science. The Creationists are peculiar,
because they HAVE heard the siren song of scientific demonstration --
many of them have peripheral contacts with it (as engineers or techni-
cians, for example, which plants a germ of truth beneath Bruce Salem's
notion that such professions are "at risk" for Creationistm. Actually,
the thing works out in the other direction: most evangelical types don't
give a damn about science and even if they automatically "believe" in the
"literal truth" of Genesis are not really C.ist material; but those who
*professionally* deal with the amazing fallout from scientific modeling
of reality are "tempted" in their evangelical zeal to "borrow" some of
the trappings -- and none of the values -- that they can't just ignore.
Everything above is about *people* and their *values* -- nothing is about
reality "changing" or "being determined" by these values. That is a pure
red-herring. If one *wants* objective models of reality, one will adopt
values and social organizations that foster the production of these --
and the result will have at least *some* resemblance to our scientific
cultures. If one *doesn't* care about that, or if it has low priority
(to making money, for example -- some of the people most weirdly out of
contact with "scientific" reality I have met have been businesspeople :-))
then, the "world" one lives in will have only tangential contact with the
"world" of a physicist or biologist.
That is no denial of the "reality" of matter, or of death. Such things
have *some* place in *any* construction of reality. But the construction
a sociologist talks about concerns how YOU put the world YOU live in toge-
ther from the bits and pieces of concepts and values that you FIND among
the various groups you intereact with. As individuals, we will each make
a modified set of these into a modified reality as it is for US -- but I
guarantee that the vast bulk of YOUR world (as conceptualized and thought
about, and acted on) is made up of bits and pieces you have taken from
others who have influenced you. The massive inundation of "experiences"
we suffer all the time is fed through a filter of this conceptual stuff.
That is what is meant by the "social construction of reality."
It is *human* reality that is conditioned by our repertoire of words and
symbols learned from other people (largely as a result of our associating
with them, both voluntarily and otherwise.)
Nobody is saying that the world would *be* flat if "most" poeple thought
so [besides which, I dispute that most people EVER thought so -- among
those who ever had an actual opinion about the shape of the earth, the
overwhelming majority have thought it roughly spherical.] If, however,
you lived in a world where everybody fervently *believed* the world to
be flat, you'd be FORCED to deal with that conception, whether you agreed
or not, for all large-scale navigational projects or the like. It would
be a SOCIAL "reality" regardless of its physical perversity.
As a matter closer to OUR social reality, the human inability to grasp
intuitively the simplest results of probability theory makes it a SOCIAL
reality that some people can get rich by acting upon *other* peoples'
"understanding of reality." These people (con-men, gamblers, advertizers),
in their turn DON'T need a "correct" understanding -- just a minor con-
gruence somewhere near their bottom line. Science is rather like that.
--
Michael L. Siemon "We honour founders of these starving cities
m...@panix.com Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
- or - They built by rivers and at night the water
m...@ulysses.att.com Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
Julie Thomas
My oh my. My lil' reponse has generated replies from no less than 7
people. Now, I really don't have the time to argue with seven people,
so I'll have to pick one (luckily, most of the responses are
redundant). And since I've always been fond of bunnies, I'll
respond to Benjamin's reply.
In a previous article, bf6...@u.cc.utah.edu (Benjamin "Snowhare" Franz) says:
>Julie Thomas (bk...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote:
>
>: In a previous article, kv...@iastate.edu (Warren vonRoeschlaub) says:
>
>
>: > But let's be generous. Name a single logical flaw that puts evolution (or
>: >the Big Bang since you seem to prefer that one) in jeopardy.
>
>
>: Hmmm. I can't speak for Johnson, and I don't know any "logical
>: fallacies" which put "evolution" in jeopardy, but some related
>: points do come to mind....
>
>: 1. It is illogical to claim that small changes over small time
>: periods can be validly extrapolated to large changes over large
>: time periods.
>
>Argument from the Heap. Classic logic fallacy. Argument from the heap
>asserts that a lot of little changes can't add up to a big change.
Bzzt. I didn't say that a lot of little changes can't add up to
a big change. But I do concede that I did not word my assertion
precisely enough, so let me try again...
1. It is illogical to claim that small changes over small time
periods necessarily give rise to large changes over large time
periods.
I can think of several examples where small changes over small
time periods do NOT give rise to large changes over large
time periods.
>Example (blatent steal from my philosophy professor):
>
>The All Cats Must Die Painfully Society had only two members in 1800.
>Since then they have only grown by 10% per year. Obviously they cannot be a
>very large organization having grown such a small amount every year.
>
>(Membership in 1994 ~ 100 million!)
Good point. But then there's the other side -
I can stack one penny on top of another at a rate of one per day.
Thus, at the end of twenty years, I'll have a stack of 7300 pennies.
Going from one penny to 7,300 pennies is a large change. It's just
that I'd like to see someone stack 7300 pennies. :)
>Given large amounts of time there does not appear to be anyway for small
>changes to *not* add up to large changes.
Really? Consider the histone proteins, for example. They function
to package DNA, and the histone from a pea is almost identitical
to the histone from a man. Certainly, the genes which encode
histones have not been exempt from point mutations. But such small
changes didn't translate as a large change. It has to do with
functional constraint. There are hundreds of examples of
such "refusal to change." They are called "conserved sequences."
>: 2. It's plain silly to claim that "nothing in biology makes sense
>: without evolution."
>
>Slightly overstated perhaps. But the fact is once you look at more than a
>very small piece of biology, evolution slaps you in the face everytime you
>turn around. Taxonomy, genetics, biochemistry, ecology, etc, etc, etc all
>use evolutionary theory as their foundation.
>
>It is possible to do only *extremely* limited work without considering
>evolution.
This opinion was shared by many others. And if this thread gets
to busy, I think I'd like to focus on this belief for now.
Thus, I would request that you or somoene else supply the following
information for me:
a. What definition of evolution are you working with?
b. Are you saying that evolution is more central to biological
study than it is peripheral?
glenn r morton
In article <7MAR1994...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lip...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) wrote:)
>I'll also add another question: Why do you think the Creation Research
>Society has an established policy not to publish any articles in the
>_Creation Research Society Quarterly_ which advocate an old earth, even
>though several of its founders were old earthers? (Were those
>old earthers "worms" from whom CRSQ readers need to be protected?)
I might also add that they they won't even publish any local flood ideas.
It seems that they believe that God only could do one thing.
Interestingly, the statements of belief for the CRS do NOT state anything
about the age of the earth. But I bet you you have a lot of trouble
publishing an old earth article there. I have never seen one.
Glenn
Mark Rupright
>You're missing the whole point and my guess is that it's intentionall.
>Sure the BB predicted various observations, but that doesn't NECESSARILY
>make a theory stronger. Most of it's predictions were general.
In another article James Acker points out:
> 3) COBE finds variability in the CBR. The Big Bang theory
>is strengthened. Cosmologists avoid black holes. Details in the
>theory are now given attention.
To which Brian Rush responds:
>You said nothing above that I didn't already know or that I disagree
>with. In particular I appreciate the way you use and even highlight the
>word 'strengthened' instead of using 'proved' like the profs here do.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
So let's get this straight. Experimental verification of predictions does
not necessarily make a theory stronger (how could it possibly make it
weaker?) The 3K background radiation and the recent COBE data were
predictions of the BB theory which were verified by experiment. But these
predictions were general, implying that cosmological models other than the
Big Bang made these predictions as well. But the agreement with experiment
makes the BB reasonable science, even though it is 99+% ad hoc and would
never be considered scientific if it were not in a field related to
evolution. Yes, you agree that the experimental results mentioned above
have strengthened the BB theory, but they have certainly not proved it, as
some of your ridiculuously ignorant professors would claim. Meanwhile, the
blatantly dishonest Jim Lippard is sending you the FAQs which you have but
don't have and bitching you out for calling him a liar for saying things
which may or may have not been dishonest which you can't remember but he
can which must mean he is either a genious or lying.
I'm soooo confused!
________________________________________________________________________
Mark Rupright | Disclaimer:
UNC Physics | We're all figments of my dog's imagination.
rupr...@physics.unc.edu | Blame her.
Note for the humor impared: Inclusion of smileys in the above would
roughly double the length of the post -- use your imagination.
James J. Lippard
:In article <2led23$m...@bigblue.oit.unc.edu> rupr...@physics.unc.edu (Mark Rupright) writes:
:>BTW there is no C-E 'controversy' among scientists. You seem to admire the
:>CRS as being more scientific that UCLA physicists. Surely you have heard
:>of the CRS's declaration of belief in Genesis creation which their
:>'scientists' must sign before they join? Would you call that attitude
:>scientific? Can you name any other 'research' organization which requires
:>their members to declare their belief in an outcome before the research is
:>even done? (Give specifics, don't say 'evolutionists' or UCLA physicists).
:That's intersting, you want to allow accurate answers...
:The CRS has that clause to protect them from worms, and don't think that
:a number of people haven't tried. Even so, I'm surprised that you cant'
:see how such a statement doesn't have to prevent someone from doing
:honest science. I guarntee you that if UCLA was about to hire a new
:physics prof that was super qualified so much that they were just
:drooling over it ('it' takes less letter then he/she for this PC world),
:they would withdrawal the offer immediately without even asking for
:details if it said it didn't believe in the BB.
I notice that you didn't actually answer the question. Can you name
any other research (or "research") organization which requires its
members to declare their belief in an outcome before research is done?
I'll also add another question: Why do you think the Creation Research
Society has an established policy not to publish any articles in the
_Creation Research Society Quarterly_ which advocate an old earth, even
though several of its founders were old earthers? (Were those
old earthers "worms" from whom CRSQ readers need to be protected?)
(And one more: Are you by chance related to (former?) ICR graduate student
David E. Rush?)
Richard Harter
>In article <2ldqf5$g...@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,
>Julie Thomas <bk...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
>>Hmmm. I can't speak for Johnson, and I don't know any "logical
>>fallacies" which put "evolution" in jeopardy, but some related
>>points do come to mind....
>>1. It is illogical to claim that small changes over small time
>>periods can be validly extrapolated to large changes over large
>>time periods.
>Hmm. So by this reasoning, it is illogical to claim that by adding many small
>numbers together one can produce a large number. Have I got it right?
No, you have it wrong. Unbounded extrapolation is not a sound mode of
reasoning and may legitimately be called a logical fallacy. Yes, you can
indeed add many small (positive) numbers together to produce a large number.
That does not imply that small evolutionary changes in the short run will
produce large changes over large time periods. The two situations are not
necessarily equivalent in principle.
None-the-less Julie's statement is wrong. It should read:
"It is illogical to claim that small changes over small time periods can be
validly extrapolated to large changes over large time periods without
supporting evidence."
--
In my lifetime we've had a Polish Pope. | Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.
In my lifetime Communism has collapsed. | Phone: 508-369-7398
In my lifetime Men have walked on the Moon. | SMDS Inc. PO Box 555
But will the Red Sox ever win a world series? | Concord MA 01742
Wade Hines
>then your mind works in a very rare way.
James, what more could one ask for? At least rare within certain realms of
experience. All too rare if you ask me.
--Wade
Bruce Munro
>
>> But let's be generous. Name a single logical flaw that puts evolution (or
>>the Big Bang since you seem to prefer that one) in jeopardy.
>
>fallacies" which put "evolution" in jeopardy, but some related
>points do come to mind....
>
>1. It is illogical to claim that small changes over small time
>periods can be validly extrapolated to large changes over large
>time periods.
Hmm. So by this reasoning, it is illogical to claim that by adding many small
numbers together one can produce a large number. Have I got it right?
--
Bruce Munro. <B.O.C...@bnr.co.uk>
"The game is about glory. It is about doing things in style, with a
flourish, about going out and beating the other lot, not waiting for
them to die of boredom." - Danny Blanchflower
Wade Hines
>In article <2lfg5r$l...@bigblue.oit.unc.edu> rupr...@physics.unc.edu (Mark Rupright) writes:
>>
>>BTW got an alternative to the Big Bang?
>>
>To change the subject, this brings up a question that I fear scientists
>have all sorts of answers to: IF (and I'm not saying this applies to th
>BB, so don't address that here) there is some question (anything from
>how old is the earth to why are whatchamacallists the size they are) for
>which we have no clear answer and one or a couple of vaguely outlined
>theories, what should we do? (1) adopt one of the vague theories because
>we MUST have a working explanation until/unless we find out better; or
>(2) admit that we have no great theory and live as though there is no
>accepted answer until we find a better one?
Well Newtonian physic didn't fit perfectly did it. It turned out to be a
subcase when certain variables could be neglected - that is it is a
simplification of a more accurate theory. Should newtonian physics have
been rejected? Nope, just understood for the limits of its predictive
power. But we mean evolution don't we. Well evolution is the unifying
framework that unites many different areas of biology. I see no reason
to throw it out but it is probabalistic in nature meaning that we can't
always say exaclty what happened. If I deal you a poker hand, I can't promise
what you'll get. Not with an honest deal. If I deal you 100 such hands I
can say within some limits how many times you probably got a pair. Should I
throw out probability because it couldn't predict each hand? That would be
quite foolish. Should I throw out evolution because it is also fraught with
the uncertainties of probability? Of course not. Anyone who really understands
it knows its limits. Within those limits, it's an excellent theory. Better
than gravity because we understand the underlying reasons for the "forces"
involved.
--Wade
Ken Smith
>
>In a previous article, kv...@iastate.edu (Warren vonRoeschlaub) says:
>
>
>> But let's be generous. Name a single logical flaw that puts evolution (or
>>the Big Bang since you seem to prefer that one) in jeopardy.
>
>
>Hmmm. I can't speak for Johnson, and I don't know any "logical
>fallacies" which put "evolution" in jeopardy, but some related
>points do come to mind....
>
>1. It is illogical to claim that small changes over small time
>periods can be validly extrapolated to large changes over large
>time periods.
You've got things a bit wrong here.
Creationists regularly make the claim that "small changes over small
time periods *cannot* be validly extrapolated to large changes over
large time periods."
It is *this* claim which isa illogical.
So if you replace "can" by "cannot" in your point 1 I would agree
with you.
>2. It's plain silly to claim that "nothing in biology makes sense
>without evolution."
For the biologists!
>Just my two pennies...
Ken Smith
--
Dr. Ken Smith | snailmail: Department of Mathematics,
email: k...@maths.uq.oz.au | The University of Queensland,
Mathematician by profession; | St Lucia, Qld. 4072.
reason sometimes rules. | Australia.
Dave Knapp
ru...@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) writes:
> In article <2lgbs3$i...@lll-winken.llnl.gov> dk@imager (Dave
> Knapp) writes:
>> In article <2lfr7d$n...@news.mic.ucla.edu>
>> ru...@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) writes:
>>> What I was TRYING to say from the beginning was related to
>>> general issues of research procedure and scientific honesty. I
>>> don't want to talk about specifics because we know that that
>>> will get us nowhere and because it will take forever (and few
>>> on the net have that much time).
>> Translation: I want to make general accusations about
>> scientific honesty without ever having to provide any actual
>> evidence. It's a lot easier that way, since evidence is hard
>> to deal with. How can you even THINK about discussion of
>> honesty without specific examples? Put up or shut up.
> Thanks for the VERY selective editing which changed the emphasis
> of my whole post and made your reply look much better. What
> happened to the next sentence or two?
Sorry. I thought I had gotten your general idea across quite
clearly. However, lest I be accused of lack of scientific
honesty, I'll include it (and even comment):
> Now, I KNOW that some will assume that is a lie and/or a
> cop-out. If so, don't even bother to tell me because there's
> nothing I can really do to convince you otherwise--just ask
> yourself if it's fair to automatically make such a conclusion
> when simple alternatives exist (e.g. that my second sentence
> above is true).
It _is_ a cop-out, you are not complying with the
generally-accepted rules for discourse, and your second sentence
(that you don't want to talk about specifics because that will
get us nowhere) is complete nonsense.
Once again, accusations of dishonesty require specifics. I
can see you now in a trial: "Your honor, I only want to discuss
crime in general. I don't want to talk about the specifics of
this crime, because I don't think it will get us anywhere."
Daniel Davidson
: What I was TRYING to say from the beginning was related to general
: issues of research procedure and scientific honesty. I don't want to
: talk about specifics because we know that that will get us nowhere and
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: because it will take forever (and few on the net have that much time).
[...]
: -Brian
*******> Consider this statement, and then read the NEXT statement...
[ Author was Brian Rush ]
[ Posted on 6 Mar 1994 07:46:18 GMT ]
Alan Wirkler said:
> Their [the creationists] consistent tactic is to present as "scientific
> evidence for creation" what are no more than criticisms of existing
> scientific theories."
And Brian Rush responded:
AGAIN!, what can be said other that to challenge someone to support such
dishonest statements. If I thought he deserved it, I could grab a number
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
of books a few feet away from me right now and show literally thousands
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
of cases where "creationsists" present things in such a professional
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
scientific way that evolutionists would get a headache from being froced
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
to think objectively upon reading it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
March 8, 1994
Dear Brian Rush:
Why do you brag about "cases" if you are unwilling to mention any?
This reminds me of Joe McCarthy, waving a sheif of papers, defaming the
reputations of honest men and women by spouting bizzare, unfounded claims.
Are you being dishonest, Mr. Brian Rush? Please explain how the above
conforms to *your* values.
dd
--
** Daniel Davidson **
San Francisco State University
davi...@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu
When seeing someone lying unconcious on a city street, it is
considered approriate to continue walking, essentially unaffected.
Tero Sand
Brian Rush <ru...@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu> wrote:
>The original 'I have it' statement was a general careless comment. And I
>And I'm surprised that
>you've never read anything in your life that you can now remember the
>general points of accurately without remembering any details.
Well, I just read it 5 minutes ago, and you are wrong. In any case, I'd
never dream of accusing anybody based on something I read 1.5 years ago.
>-Brian
--
Tero Sand, 2 kyu ! Science is a process of enlarging one's
! ignorance to dizzying heights.
EMail: cus...@cc.helsinki.fi ! - D.C.Lindsay in talk.origins
cus...@cc.helsinki.fi !
Bruce Stephens
> To change the subject, this brings up a question that I fear
> scientists have all sorts of answers to: IF (and I'm not saying this
> applies to th BB, so don't address that here) there is some question
> (anything from how old is the earth to why are whatchamacallists the
> size they are) for which we have no clear answer and one or a couple
> of vaguely outlined theories, what should we do? (1) adopt one of
> the vague theories because we MUST have a working explanation
> until/unless we find out better; or (2) admit that we have no great
> theory and live as though there is no accepted answer until we find
> a better one?
What's wrong with both 1 and 2? Theories don't need to be wonderful
to be useful. The appropriate scientific answer is probably (3) Apply
for research funding to investigate.
--
Bruce Institute of Advanced Scientific Computation
br...@liverpool.ac.uk University of Liverpool
Mark Rupright
>Brian Rush (ru...@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu) wrote:
[contradictory statements of Brian Rush deleted]
>Dear Brian Rush:
>
>Why do you brag about "cases" if you are unwilling to mention any?
>
>This reminds me of Joe McCarthy, waving a sheif of papers, defaming the
>reputations of honest men and women by spouting bizzare, unfounded claims.
>
>Are you being dishonest, Mr. Brian Rush? Please explain how the above
>conforms to *your* values.
Actually, the tactic is to me more reminiscent of Gish's claim that there
were chicken and frog proteins which were closer in structure to their
human couterparts than were the corresponding chimpanzee proteins. Gish
avoided specifics about this for years, even though he claimed to have them.
(Ref: the creationist dishonesty FAQ)
>
> ** Daniel Davidson **
> San Francisco State University
> davi...@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu
______________________________________________________________________________
Mark Rupright | "Contrariwise, if it was so, it might be; and if it
UNC Physics | were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.
rupr...@physics.unc.edu | That's logic." Lewis Carroll
Bostick J M
>
>My oh my. My lil' reponse has generated replies from no less than 7
>people. Now, I really don't have the time to argue with seven people,
>so I'll have to pick one (luckily, most of the responses are
>redundant). And since I've always been fond of bunnies, I'll
>respond to Benjamin's reply.
>
>a big change. But I do concede that I did not word my assertion
>precisely enough, so let me try again...
>
>1. It is illogical to claim that small changes over small time
>periods necessarily give rise to large changes over large time
>periods.
>
>I can think of several examples where small changes over small
>time periods do NOT give rise to large changes over large
>time periods.
>
>Good point. But then there's the other side -
>
>I can stack one penny on top of another at a rate of one per day.
>Thus, at the end of twenty years, I'll have a stack of 7300 pennies.
>Going from one penny to 7,300 pennies is a large change. It's just
>that I'd like to see someone stack 7300 pennies. :)
>
that's not the other side of anything. and really is no refutation
of the example given ( the cats' society ).
>>Given large amounts of time there does not appear to be anyway for small
>>changes to *not* add up to large changes.
>
>Really? Consider the histone proteins, for example. They function
>to package DNA, and the histone from a pea is almost identitical
>to the histone from a man. Certainly, the genes which encode
>histones have not been exempt from point mutations. But such small
>changes didn't translate as a large change. It has to do with
>functional constraint. There are hundreds of examples of
>such "refusal to change." They are called "conserved sequences."
>
> Julie, I probably should leave this to the better qualified, but I
cant stay out of it. I think creationists are extrememely dangerous
and should be thwarted at every opportunity.
If proteins, or muscles, or limbs, or organisms have a special function,
when they change dramatically they possibly lose their ability to perform
that function. And sometimes are unrecognizable as the same thing.
That being the case, how could histone proteins change dramatically
over time? They would no longer be the same thing. But to get to where
they are they must have changed ( evolved ) from something else into
the specialized proteins that they are now. And have been. And will
continue to be.
What really disturbs me about creationists is their reversal of
the scientific process. Instead of finding data, working out a
hypothesis, testing, refining, developing a theory; they have drawn
a conclusion, then look for data to back up the conclusion they
have already made. And look for ways to discredit any data that doesnt
fit with their theory, instead of refining a theory to incorporate
the data.
This would all be ok, as most religions are ok, if it was kept
and shared among the true believers. But when they offer this as an
'alternate theory' to be taught along with evolution, I will fight
to stop it.
Mark
>
Tero Sand
In article <1994Mar8.0...@smds.com>,
Richard Harter <r...@ishmael.UUCP> wrote:
>In article <2leu8b$a...@bnsgd245.bnr.co.uk> bocm...@bnr.co.uk (Bruce Munro) writes:
>>In article <2ldqf5$g...@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,
>>Julie Thomas <bk...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
>
>>>Hmmm. I can't speak for Johnson, and I don't know any "logical
>>>fallacies" which put "evolution" in jeopardy, but some related
>>>points do come to mind....
>
>>>1. It is illogical to claim that small changes over small time
>>>periods can be validly extrapolated to large changes over large
>>>time periods.
[...]
>None-the-less Julie's statement is wrong. It should read:
>
>"It is illogical to claim that small changes over small time periods can be
>validly extrapolated to large changes over large time periods without
>supporting evidence."
I disagree, somewhat. I think it is entirely valid to extrapolate if no
mechanism is known to counteract. The argument about continents eroding
away isn't invalid because of the extrapolation per se, but because
there are (well known, please note!) mechanisms to counteract the
effect.
Still, it should be noted that extrapolation is such a weak piece of
"evidence" that it's not used. There _are_ [many] other lines of evidence.
>In my lifetime we've had a Polish Pope. | Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.
James G. Acker
: > scientists have all sorts of answers to: IF (and I'm not saying this
: > applies to th BB, so don't address that here) there is some question
: > (anything from how old is the earth to why are whatchamacallists the
: > size they are) for which we have no clear answer and one or a couple
: > of vaguely outlined theories, what should we do? (1) adopt one of
: > the vague theories because we MUST have a working explanation
: > until/unless we find out better; or (2) admit that we have no great
: > theory and live as though there is no accepted answer until we find
: > a better one?
Top 10 List (I hope) of vague theories used for working
explanations until scientists discovered better explanations:
10) Ptolemaic epicycles
9) The ether
8) Phlogiston
7) Cooling trend at the end of the Cretaceous to kill dinosaurs off
6) Earth, air, fire, water
5) Steady-state Universe
4) Wegener's "continental drift"
3) Catastrophic flood geology
2) Newtonian astrophysics
and the number one vague theory used before scientists came up
with a better explanation:
1) Fiat creation of the Universe
Warren vonRoeschlaub
In article <2lgt4i$1...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bk...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie
Thomas) writes:
>My oh my. My lil' reponse has generated replies from no less than 7
>people.
Trying to help, I'll just adress 1 point:
>Really? Consider the histone proteins, for example. They function
>to package DNA, and the histone from a pea is almost identitical
>to the histone from a man. Certainly, the genes which encode
>histones have not been exempt from point mutations. But such small
>changes didn't translate as a large change. It has to do with
>functional constraint. There are hundreds of examples of
>such "refusal to change." They are called "conserved sequences."
This has come up before. There are actually several reasons for this, but
the most obvious one was, I felt, that the decision that all histones are the
same implies they cannot change is rather presumptuous.
Could it not be that the histones that exist are merely the best possible?
So when different histones appear, they are outcompeated by their faster
cousins, and dissapear. During early evolution, when bad histones were all
there were, it wouldn't be much of a disadvantage. But now, sythesizing
protein even 10% slower than everyone else is a pretty serious problem.
>a. What definition of evolution are you working with?
Get the "what is evolution" faq available by anonymous ftp from
ics.uci.edu, or on the www via http://www.ics.uci.edu/~bvickers/
--
Matthew P Wiener
>[regarding the claim that it's illogical that small changes accumulate]
>Really? Consider the histone proteins, for example. They function
>to package DNA, and the histone from a pea is almost identitical
>to the histone from a man. Certainly, the genes which encode
>histones have not been exempt from point mutations. But such small
>changes didn't translate as a large change. It has to do with
>functional constraint. There are hundreds of examples of
>such "refusal to change." They are called "conserved sequences."
This is extremely stupid.
Evolution does not say everything has to change.
Do you have some point, or are you just typing for the exercise?
Matthew P Wiener
>What I was TRYING to say from the beginning was related to general
>issues of research procedure and scientific honesty. I don't want to
>talk about specifics because we know that that will get us nowhere and
Hahahahahahahaha.
What a copout.
What a complete losing coward.
What a total hot air balloon.
>Now, I KNOW that some will assume that is a lie and/or a cop-out.
No kidding. Maybe, just maybe, that's what it is?????
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
> If so,
>don't even bother to tell me because there's nothing I can really do to
>convince you otherwise
We know that you can't convince us otherwise. Because no such specifics
that you claim exist. How's that?
> --just ask yourself if it's fair to automatically
>make such a conclusion when simple alternatives exist (e.g. that my
>second sentence above is true).
No, it's not fair. But we don't do it automatically. I, at least, make
such a conclusion based on seeing hundreds of loud mouths like yourself
make such total empty claims and then failing to deliver. The few that
have tried turned out, surprise surprise, to not understand what they
were talking about, but at least they tried. I can at least respect
the efforts of Bob Bales and his attempt to argue via pseudoisochrons.
But you? You're just a coward and a loser.
Mark Isaak
In article <2ldqf5$g...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bk...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) writes:
>1. It is illogical to claim that small changes over small time
>periods can be validly extrapolated to large changes over large
>time periods.
Absolutely, positively true! And don't forget it! And remember, at the
same time, that it is equally illogical to claim that small changes over
small time periods can NOT be so extrapolated. That's why we look for other
evidence, too. There's tons of it to support evolution, and none to support
Creationism.
>2. It's plain silly to claim that "nothing in biology makes sense
>without evolution."
I guess I see your point. How about, "Biology as a whole doesn't make sense
without evolution"?
--
Mark Isaak "There lives more faith in honest doubt,
is...@aurora.com Believe me, than in half the creeds." - Tennyson
Matthew P Wiener
> Top 10 List (I hope) of vague theories used for working
>explanations until scientists discovered better explanations:
>7) Cooling trend at the end of the Cretaceous to kill dinosaurs off
No theory of dinosaur extinction was really in vogue before Alvarez.
They just were tossed off and it was all considered unknown.
(In contrast with ether, phlogiston, etc, which were vague but were
accepted as a genuine working explanation in need of refinement and
experimental testing.)
>5) Steady-state Universe
I don't think it was really considered a working explanation, it was more
a competing theory, the loyal opposition. Nor was it vague: it can be
described explicitly as a solution to Einstein's equations. For those
not in the know, GR does not imply conservation of energy, except as a
local average. In particular, the assertion of matter appearing out of
"nowhere" (ie, continuous creation) was not an ad hoc adjustment, but a
consequence of GR.
>4) Wegener's "continental drift"
It wasn't vague, and it wasn't used as a working explanation at the time.
Its precision and clarity was good enough for counterarguments to made
regarding the mechanism, and for predictions to made regarding its rate.
Since Wegener had the wrong mechanism, the predicted rate was several
orders of magnitude greater than the actual, and this was measurable in
the 30s.
>2) Newtonian astrophysics
This certainly was not vague. And you know what, it is still used!
James J. Lippard
:In article <7MAR1994...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lip...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) wrote:)
That's right--there is no *published* policy about not publishing
old-earth articles. But Henry Morris writes in his _History of Modern
Creationism_ that such a policy was voted on and approved by the CRS
Board.
Wade Hines
>You can only "contradict" social constructionism if you are prepared to
>argue that what scientists know *is* reality -- absolutely and without
>the mediation of any human symbology. In other words, you'd have to be
>committed to a position that science deals, on an everyday basis, with
>pure, unmediated reality. Behold: hier ist das Ding an Sich. But in
>fact, science deals with *models* -- human constructs out of human concepts
>organized (and competing with alternate models) on the basis of certain
>priorities of *value* in the scientific community. None of this is nasty
>and dismissive of those values -- they have been important to me since I
>first started encountering them in a "popular science" context in grade
>school, forty years ago.
Sorry but that doesn't cut it for me. I hope you know what a mass spectrum
is. It basically blows your model arguement to hell. They aren't hypotheticals
being bent around in fields and landing with extreme precision. They are
real - as real as it gets. When I measure something on my spectrometer I
know what the limits of my instrumentation are and what I am seeing. This
isn't some archane theory of gas-phase ion chemistry but discrete bits
of stuff. Some science delves into theories of theories of models but to
color it all that way is lunacy.
>The investigative values of the scientific community (or communities)
>are embodied and transmitted in the classrooms, the textbooks, and the
>popularizations of science, as well as directly in the laboratory and
>the refereed journals. These values are strongly prioritized -- above
>all else, a compelling *demonstration* of hypotheses from a plethora
>of data, given in a context that minimizes subjectivity, reigns supreme.
>A smidgeon below that (and possibly prevailing if the data are less
>than overwhelming or the demonstration is a bit shaky), values of economy
>or aesthetics [another can of value-worms] may dominate -- and there are
>LOTS of little values than can trip one up (like, not making one's advisor
>look bad at conferences :-))
A good scientist should be irreverent. I don't give my advisor any breaks.
He'll tell you as much. Others often look on in dismay but I get respect
for being that way. (and probably not for much else) The failing is in
the popularization of science.
The watering down of details and the agrandizment of conclusions to a
headline - "Sunlight causes cancer" Society may want to use science to
guide politics but that doesn't make science a matter for political
consensus.
>Nobody is saying that the world would *be* flat if "most" poeple thought
>so [besides which, I dispute that most people EVER thought so -- among
>those who ever had an actual opinion about the shape of the earth, the
>overwhelming majority have thought it roughly spherical.] If, however,
>you lived in a world where everybody fervently *believed* the world to
>be flat, you'd be FORCED to deal with that conception, whether you agreed
>or not, for all large-scale navigational projects or the like. It would
>be a SOCIAL "reality" regardless of its physical perversity.
>As a matter closer to OUR social reality, the human inability to grasp
>intuitively the simplest results of probability theory makes it a SOCIAL
>reality that some people can get rich by acting upon *other* peoples'
>"understanding of reality." These people (con-men, gamblers, advertizers),
>in their turn DON'T need a "correct" understanding -- just a minor con-
>gruence somewhere near their bottom line. Science is rather like that.
I won't like a lamp to hold to the great icon of truth - science - because
it don't hold that it has any such special place. But it is about an
objective reality that is independent of the bias of the observer. Science
may be flawed in the inability of the observer to completely remove herself
from that being observed but that flaw itself can be understood objectively.
Your reality game is a circular logic. Public perception of science doesn't
change science - scientists opinions don't change reality.
I hope Richard Harter takes a crack at this. He writes so well.
--Wade
Wade Hines
>I remember this overwhelming urge to have a chat with Michael Courtney's
>academic adviser ("do you really allow him to play 'dragons' with
>high-powered lasers?"). I feel the same urge coming over me..... maybe
>I should forward this to Michael?
I doubt he cares if you do but why would you want to do so. We don't need
that brand of censorship - we'll take him in a fair fight. I find the
whole attitude behind your post reprehensible and encourage you to
leave with it. Get lost. Be gone and take your childish spite with you.
I have no fear of other people with scientific backgrounds saying anything
they like. When Mr. Rush refuses to get involved in specifics he makes
a point far better than anyone preaching from my side could. Science isn't
about what someone with some rag on their wall says - it's about what the
evidence says.
--Wade