From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 27 Aug 92 23:52:26 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <2A9D467B.24114@ics.uci.edu> bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
>riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>>	I disagree. The problem is not "fundamentalist/creatist" (your
>>words) logic. It is whether or not their "data" is valid and relevant.
>>If that data IS valid and relevant, there is no reason to criticize their
>>theory as unscientific. Most of the valid criticism of creationism centers
>>on whether the "facts" they present are, in fact, facts. Anybody can make
>>up a theory.
>
>There are several flaws in the content of your paragraph above.
>Anybody can make up a theory, but not a scientific one.  The
>"it's just a theory" claim is made by creationists all the time
>in an attempt to mock evolution.  However, a scientific theory
>is not a guess; it's a model that is supported by a large (if
>not overwhelming) sum of evidence.  Scientific theories make
>predictions, they are prone to modification, and they make no
>appeals to authority.  Creationism does not pass muster on any
>of these points.  It certainly makes no predictions -- it simply
>states a scientifically unfounded conclusion.  It is not
>open to modification, for it is dogmatically inspired and
>absolute.  And it makes constant appeals to Biblical or supernatural
>authority rather than to the evidence.  The biggest reason
>creationism is nonscientific is that there is no evidence for it
>and there is no coherent scientific theory to explain it.

	Methinks you protest too much. The part of my article that you
chose not to respond to stated that creationism is an antitheory, designed
to counter the theory of evolution. My real complaint is that you
and many, many others have stated repeatedly and dogmatically that
if we just were intellectually honest and followed the data, it would
automatically lead us to believe in evolution. That is clearly what
Steven Jay Gould means when he states that evolution is a fact.




>
>You make the mistake of confusing a hypothesis with a theory.
>Evolution is much more than a hypothesis; it is a scientifically
>factual process whose mechanisms are explained by a thoroughly
>grounded scientific theory.  It makes predictions.  For a
>splendid example of this, refer to the talk.origins discussions
>on the naked mole rat.  A scientist unaware of their existence
>predicted the characteristics and probable existence of such
>creatures based on evolutionary modes.  Another prediction made
>by evolutionary theory is that no life form which is reproductively
>unfit will survive to pass its genes on in any significant way.
>Evolutionary theory is also prone to modification.  It is
>happening all the time.  The transformations from catastrophism,
>Lamarckianism, and gradualist notions of evolutionary theory are
>some of the broader modifications that occurred within the
>theory.  The modern synthesis of genetics and Darwinian evolution is
>one of the most striking examples of a major alteration of
>evolutionary theory.  Net biologists and bio-nuts like
>Chris Colby and Stan Friesen can assuredly provide you with
>more recent examples (eg. punctuated equilibrium).  Finally,
>evolution does not use appeals to authority.  No dogmatic script
>is ever consulted; only the evidence and the theories supported
>by the evidence are necessary to construct evolutionary theory.
>This is not to say that some people do not defend evolution
>dogmatically; humans are fallible.  But evolution stands on its
>own.

	I would really like to know what your definition of a 
"scientifically factual process" is supposed to be. The Marxists
claimed that they had a "scientifically factual process" as well
(objective, too). We have not disproved evolution as a means of
explaining the rise of man any more than we have disproved Marxism
as a means of explaining human society. But do you not see that
simply avowing evolutionary theory as being the only "right" 
basis to look at these issues automatically limits what we can determine,
yes scientifically determine ? Darwin and Lamarck could be just as wrong
as Galen and Aristotle were, but we have not found the way to
extract the data yet which proves them so. Does this mean that mankind
should stop trying to explain the unknown, or to challenge "received
truth" ? If all theory (okay, wise guy, hypotheses) has/have to pass
muster in relation to previously "proved" hypotheses, is this 
really science ? This is what Medieval scholasticism taught. It is
quite possible to be logically consistent, intellectually balanced,
and just plain wrong if you are working off the wrong data. I would
have thought this point to be relatively non-controversial.




>
>>	But let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. If creationism
>>does a lousy job at documenting the past, how well does evolutionary theory
>>predict the future. Geez, well, you know evolution is based on pure
>>randomness, isn't it ? Too much randomness out there to PREDICT future
>>development of species, no ? Show me the scientific study of biological
>>diversity which explains what is happening out there NOW. And don't try
>>telling me that you don't have enough data.
>
>At its most simplistic level, evolution is based on random variables.
>But that randomness is directed by clearly non-random processes.  Take
>for example natural selection: it does not randomly choose who gets
>to survive.  Instead, only the individuals who are capable of reproducing
>are selected for.  All of science is probabilistic; the determinism
>you seek is unrealistic and unsupported by the facts.  For example,
>if you were to ask me the exact trajectories of 5000 bouncing balls
>enclosed in a large room, I would be unable to predict them with any
>accuracy at all.  Even using a computer, I would not be able to factor
>in temperature, friction, air resistance or even the slight differences
>between the balls.  Does that make the scientific study of physics and
>thermodynamics any less tractable?  Of course not.  We look at the
>system as a whole and derive more general, more probabilistic
>predictions.

	It may, in fact, be that what I am interested in doing is predicting
the path of a specific ball. If you accept the assertion that underlying
the "noise" there are really relatively constrained "objective processes",
then your thinking is much closer to Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and Karl 
Marx than you may be willing to admit. This is not to say that either
aggregatiing data at a high level or drawing conclusions based on
statistical probabilties is scientifically wrong - I certainly won't 
let you box me into THAT corner without a fight. But what lies at the
bottom: casuality or numerical probability ? Are you prepared to take and
defend a position on this ?




>
>Finally, although evolutionary theory makes predictions, it is primarily
>a historical science.  It attempts to explain, scientifically, the way
>life has evolved.  A benefit is that it gives us understanding into the
>manner in which life will continue to evolve in the future.  But like
>astrophysics, linguistics, and other historical sciences, evolutionary
>theory dwells on the processes and mechanisms that allowed change (or
>stasis) to occur.  Much of (but hardly all) the evidence for evolution
>comes from natural history, yet there is no reason to assume that the
>processes derived from the study of that history will not hold true in
>the future.

	As a historian, I would not hang my hat on evolution. There is not
enough data there to prove beans. Whether Darwin was right or not depends
quite solely on his ability to have made a calculated scientific 
wild-ass guess. On the other hand, we have the option to believe in a Creator,
at the minimum out there with a set of cosmic dice, designing creatures
and experimenting with gene pools. The contrast in beliefs is clear - the 
rest is an argument over the data.

	Bill R.

	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any
government agency."


-- 
Bill R.