From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: Calling facts "theory"
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:26:41 GMT

This is a followup to an article which appeared on alt.atheism, and is
crossposted to a.a. and talk.origins. Followups set to talk.origins.

For t.o. readers, I've quoted the entire original article (in bite-size
chunks) but omitted the parts which were themselves quotes.

In article <exukjb.158.716573562@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se
(ken bell) writes:

> [quotes deleted]

>> Peter Nyikos

Aren't you glad I deleted the quotes now? :-)

> Whoa! Wait a minute here. I'm a skeptical theist but I don't believe in the
> "fact" of evolution.  There are plenty of dissenters in the scientific 
> community from the neo-Darwinian orthodoxy, and in any event, a distinction
> must be made between mutational evolutionary theory (which is established 
> as fact like gravitational theory but doesn't entail naturalism) and 
> naturalistic evolutionary theory, which is "a metaphysical research 
> program" (Popper) and which is frankly nonsupernaturalist.

I am unclear as to what is meant respectively by `mutational' and
`naturalistic' evo theories. I suspect that, in t.o.speak, you may
mean `microevolution' and `macroevolution'. Please elaborate.

In stating the supposed distinction between the two, you say that
"naturalistic evolutionary theory ... is frankly nonsupernaturalist".
This is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for *any* theory
to be scientific. Does `mutational evolutionary theory' somehow differ?

> My reasons 
> for dissenting are certain logical and philosophical difficulties 
> inherent in the way most NET (naturalist evolutionary theory) is 
> formulated--problems with the tautological character of natural 
> selection theory,

Please provide examples.

> problems of accounting for human cognitive-esthetic 
> rapport with the world in terms of a natural selection model,

What do you find inconsistent? You have to bear in mind that complex
networks such as the human brain can exhibit complex behaviours over
and above those functions which may have evolved at some time past
in response to specific selective pressures. Natural selection
operates only on those functions which bear on reproductive success.
We are free to carry any other baggage we like, provided it doesn't
affect our reproductive chances.

> problems about the "arrival" of the fittest,

Surely this problem is exactly what is addressed by evolutionary theory?
If you think it is inadequate, please explain why.

> and problems about what is to be taken as the fundamental unit of
> evolutionary process (i.e., *what* is it that evolves?).

The gene pool of a population.

> These and similar quirks give me pause, and I am open to the possibility
> that some of these may be overcome in the future, but it is clearly not
> true that evolutionary theory stands on the same scientific ground as the
> fact that the moon is not made of green -- or was it Swiss -- cheese.

On the contrary, my impression is that it stands on scientific ground
every bit as firm as moonrock, but t.o. is the place to discuss it if
you differ.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
> Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        ANTHEM BBS 386-7907
> P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
> Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK