From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: k12.ed.science
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 5 Jan 93 22:42:46 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Dec23.203635.23911@isc-br.isc-br.com>
     bruceh@access.isc-br.com (Bruce Hogan) writes:

>For the sake of students reading this newsgroup who are developing their 
>thinking processes and their scientific process: many of us who write to and 
>respond in this type of thread are so evangelistically committed to a position 
>already that we forget that true knowledge is discovered when we collect what 
>is observable without regard to the outcome.  

I disagree that "many of us [...] are [...] evangelistically
committed".  If I, Dan Ashlock or others seem that way, it is only
because we can't overemphasize how mistaken most people are in their
averred reasons for doubting the fact of evolution.

Rather than take on all of your points one by one, I will only suggest
that you:

     do a full court press on how he/she arrived at the conclusion and
     see if you can find a flaw in the logic or the premisses and
     consider how your own conclusion might need to be tweaked.

while inserting in place of "he/she" above at least 10% of the reading
list that Chris Stassen suggested back in December.  I have an older
version of Chris' reading list if he's not reading this and if you
would like to see it again (there isn't much overlap between Chris'
list and yours).

With one possible exception (see below), all of the "observable facts"
which you offer are easily demolished in those sources.  I also have
some of the files compiled on talk.origins including a huge file
listing *some* of the transitional series of organisms which are
reasonably well known.  I invite you to "do a full court press" with
the data contained in these files as well, and I'll mail them to you
if you just give the word.

There is one "fact" that I suspect won't be covered in any of the
books or articles I can point you towards, however.  That is:

>8)  The rate of abandonment of the evolutionary model by hundreds of highly 
>    qualified scientists.  You would never find this out by reading your 
>    science book or the newspaper of course, but it is worth your research 
>    time.  Find out why they are questioning the premisses of evolutionary 
>    thinking.

I doubt that your "fact" is correct, and would like to see a
verification of it.  However, the last sentence above--where you ask
"why" is probably the only thing about your number 8 that's worth
looking into.  As I've said before, there are no priests or prophets
in science, and credentials shouldn't mean a whole heck of a lot when
you're evaluating information and ideas.

Finally I'll comment on one other point you attempt to make:

> Many more questions could, and should, be asked before one should 
>just assume the evolution model is "fact".  In my opinion, it fits the 
>prevailing philosophy of life but not the observable evidences of life in 
>the past, which is all we have to go on since none of us were there.  And, 
>since none of us were there, both systems are a system of faith when neither 
>one can be scientifically proven.  Scientific proof requires a duplication of 
>the event.  Not possible here.

This is completely bogus.  Ignoring the red herring about "scientific
proof"--which many of us have already explained to be a non-issue--the
past can (and is) investigated scientifically, because the data
doesn't melt away.  I invite students to come up with ways in which
presently observable evidence can give us scientific insight into past
events.  Bear in mind the phrase "testable predictions", and you
should see that faith has nothing to do with our assessments of the
scientific validity of historical facts.

>Bruce Hogan

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)