From: bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability / Attrition
Date: 17 Dec 92 21:38:49 GMT


David Rice writes:

>What is the probability of a "random" mutation being benificial to an
>organism? What is the probability of the same mutation being benificial to a
>population of that species? We know that it is -probable- to occur, because
>observation shows us that it DOES occured--- but what are the probabilities
>involved?
 
>(Beneficial equals an improved ability to survive or out-reproduce
>competing organisms.)
 
>I would think the questions are far too complex for humans to calculate. So
>why do some Creationists claim they know the probabilities? I doubt if there
>are any Creationists who are all-powerful and all-knowing; therefore the
>figures they assert are bogus.

I doubt that evolutionists are any more all-powerful and all-knowing than
creationists. :-)  If we don't know the probabilities, the evolutionary
claims that the probabilities are high (perhaps high enough to be called
"certain") are just as bogus as creationist claims that the probabilities are
low.

And now for something completely different. . . .

David has a perfrect right to his opinions.  However, I think that he has some
facts wrong.  I think the main reason I am responding is not that it is
one opinion, but that these same arguments are commonally and incorrectly used
as reasons to ignore creationism.

>As long as I'm bitching and complaining. . . .
 
>The trend I see in Creationists is to assert over and over again the same
>old, tired claims.

The claims may be the same, but they are certainly not old and tired.  The
creationists' claims are basically that theories and conclusions about origins
should be based on all of the observed facts and not be restricted to the one
theory that happens to be popular.

>Scientists answer these Creationist's claims, correcting them, again and
>again and again, 

What really happens is that scientists who are evolutionists answer scientists
who are creationists.  And if you look at the answers, you find that either
immediately or not before long, the answer is "the creationists are wrong
because what they say disagrees with what evolution theorizes."  And since
this certainly does not prove the creationists wrong, the latter feel
perfectly free to continue to state their theories.

>until the scientists get so damn tired of doing so, they give up.

I have seen a number of books which claim to show how wrong creationism is.
Almost without exception, they include a sectio on what creationists believe,
or supposedly believe, and how irrational they are supposed to be, subjects
that have absolutely nothing to do with origins or whether creationist
theories are correct or not. The authors of such books evidently feel the need
to use OTHER than scientific facts to discredit creation theories.  This leads
to the suspicion that scientific facts do not discredit creation theories.

>It is my observation that Creationists are not interested in providing proof,
>or even evidence, of their claims;

My observation, largely in this group, is the reverse.  When a  creationist
claims, for example, that perhaps a certain organism might not be a transional
form, that claim will be based on the observed characteristics of the
organism in question.  The evolutionists will respond with the characteristics
that cause them to call it transional.  Fair enought.  But if the creationist
asks why the evolutionary interpretation of characteristics is better than
his own, the evolutionists usually state that their position (that the
organism is transional) is a fact unless it can be disproved and that if the
creationist disagrees, he is ignoring the facts. This position ingores the
fact that it is up to the evolutionist to provide positive evidence for his
claims if he wishes them to be believed.

This is just a specific example.  Disputes over other claims are the same.
The evolutionist can only establish his case through an objective defense of
his theories, but what is usually offered is only a recitation of them.

>their only desire is to out-last and out-shout,

If you define "shouting" as trying to decide the case on things other than
the evidence, there is no quesition that it is the evolution side who is
doing the shouting.

As I mentioned above, every anti-creationism book I have seen includes an
attack on creatioists' character.  If a pro-creationism book used the same
technique, I'd bet that evolutionist would proclaim that it showed such
blatent bias that what the book said could be discredited without reading.

Or if you defined the issue simply in terms of what those on each side have
written and said, either in the group or in general, the evolution side would
greatly outweigh the creation side.

>through attrition, the evolutionary scientist until the latter surrenders out
>of dispair and the sheer exertion

My actual desire, and I believe that of most creationists, is to get scienti-
fic facts, not just theories, into the open, and base decisions as to origins
on what the evidence shows.

>of trying to educate the willfully ignorant.

Assume that persons 'A' and 'B' are each trying to convince 'C' of their
theory.  If 'A' says, "I see your point of view, but I think it is wrong for
the following reasons:. . . .", he has the task of persuading 'C' that the
reasons are valid.  But if 'A' can persuade 'C' that 'B` is willfully
ignorent, then perhaps 'C' will accept that 'A's argument is better *without
having heard the arguments.  I think that is why evolutionists use such terms
so often.

>While the scientist has a great many other tasks she or he wish to persue in
>her or his career, and thus cannot devote a massive amount of time debunking
>Creationists,

Plus the fact that a scientist believing in creation would not even be
interested in devoting time to debunking creationists.

>the Creationists are much better funded,

I doubt that.  If you look at some of the organizations against creationism:

    People for the American Way
    American Humanist Association (I think the name is right)
    ACLU
    Omni Magizine (I think) who recommended a write in campaign to Congress
       (?) to preserve the freedom of thinking for oneself which is the result
       of teaching one theory of origins and to oppose the censorship which
       would result from teaching two.
    Scientific American -- who did not hire Forrest Mims for a job unrelated
       to biology because he is a creationist

I think you will find much more funding on the anti-creationism side,

>and their -career- is attacking science and evolutionary theory.

Most whose career are involved with creationism will be doing the scientific
study of origins.  To say that they are attacking science is to say that they
are attacking *themselves.*  But if and when their study uncovers evidence
which conflicts with evolutionary theory, it is their right and duty to
say so.

>In other words, the former do not, as a rule, have the time and funds to
>debunk Creationist propaganda and lies,

Evolutionists who are studying origins presumably are uncovering facts and
evidence.  If that evidence supports the idea that evolution is right and
creation is wrong, then *by definition* the creationists' claims will be
debunked.  If the evidence does not show this, there is no debunking to be
done.

>while Creationists have all the time in the world,

Creationists have the same 168 hours/week as non-creationists.

>PLUS GET PAID,

How about the authors of:

     _The Blind Watchmaker_
     _Scientists Confront Creationism_
     _Abusing Science_
     _The Encyclopedia of Science and Creationism_ (? exact title)
     _The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism_
     _Science on Trial_
     _Evolution and the Myth of Creationism_
     etc.

Didn't they get paid?

>to manufacture the propaganda and lies.

I can just imagine some of the things which would be said in this group if a
creationist were to say that evolutionists create propaganda and lies but
that there was no time to debunk them.  In some of the milder responses :-).
he would probably be told that he should not raise the issue of propaganda
and lies unless he was prepared to offer proof of the charges.  The same
standard should apply here!

Anyone who complains about creationists' "propaganda and lies" should not
also complain about a lack of time to debunk creationist.  Anyone who has
time to do the former could use the time to do the latter instead, assuming
it is possible.

It all comes down to this.  If you have *objective, verified* information
that shows creationism to be wrong, then show it to be wrong, and it will
be wrong, period.  There will be no need to call it "propaganda and lies."
But if you don't have that information, then the "propaganda and lies"
charge means nothing, although it might convince some people of your case.

>How the bloody hell can education, intelligence, and rationality preserve the
>many gains in science, when the forces that are in place to attack science

The idea that creationists are somehow "attacking" science is one of the big-
gest pieces of false propaganda on the origins issue.  Science is a certain
way way of looking at the world, of processing data and of forming theories.
*Science is NOT one particular theory.*  Claiming that those who say that one
particular theory does not meet scientific standards are attacking science
is the same as claiming that those who say that copper braclets do not cure
arthritis are attacking medicine.

>pays more money, and has more time?

I don't know for sure, but in the book field, I would say that anti-creation
authors have been paid more than pro-creation authors.

>If a scientist were to track down a particular Creationist book, read it,
>find the flaws in its assertions, and explain the flaws to other real (as
>compared to Creationist) scientists,

Speaking of propaganda. . . .  "Those who disagree with us are not real
scientists.  Don't listen to them tell you of their theory.  If you want to
know anything, either about our theory or their theory, listen to us."
[By the use of quotation marks, I don't necessarily mean to imply the David
says this.  However, it is the common implication when creationists are called
"not real scientists."]

[I am also aware that people have posted articles claiming that specifc
creationists do not have scientific credentials.  I have not investigated
these claims.  But if true, they brand only those involved -- no one else,
and certainly not creationists in general -- as non-scientists.]

>what has been gained? The Creationists will cry "Is not!"

If the creationist sees flaws in the evolutionist's work, he is as entitled to
point them out as vice versa. (Most of the anti-creationist books I listed
above have holes in fact and/or logic big enough to drive a truck through --
examples on request.)

>and the scientists who did the work debunking the book's claim is out time
>and money and effort.

Science is supposed to work by free discussion on both sides, by examination
of claims, rebuttal and counter-claim, with the truth (to the best we can
know it) emerging at the *end* of the discussion.  I've observed that
evolutionists seem to want to *begin* the discussion by declaring victory.
If the debunking is not successful, it just might be because it is wrong, not
because creationists have confused the issue.

>Why the bloody hell do people still believe there is a "evolution creationism
>controversy," when there hasn't been for over 100 years?

For over a hundred years, those who believe in evolutionn have not had a
contraversy.  They have declared their theory to be "the way it actually
happened" and have, as does the article above, called those who disagree with
them as "not real scientists."  In the larger world, however, the contraversy
exists because the claims made for evolution do not agree with observed fact.

>Does society really care that little about education?

So who cares most about education?  Those who want to teach that their own
view of things be the only one taught as fact?  Or those who want it
acknowledged that people see things in different ways and who want it taught
what those different ways are and the observations that the different ways
are based on?

I contend it is the latter.

   Bob Bales
   Tektronix, Inc.

I help Tektronix make their instruments. They don't help me make my opinions.