From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Atheistic creationism -- a tutorial
Date: 26 Sep 92 10:07:42 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Sep26.071853.5636@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>Ah, the temptation.  Actually, what you are doing is appealing to
>authority.  This is a better argument than it is given credit for
>being.  If the experts say one thing and some scoundrel give some
>plausible arguments for something else, the wise man who is ignorant
>in the area under discussion will put his money on the experts.  Most
>of the time he will be right; sometimes he won't.  Thomas Jefferson
>once said, "I would rather believe that some professors from Yale would
>lie, than that stones fall from the sky."  In one of his columns
>Isaac Asimov discussed this quotation with approval.  His point
>was that, despite being egregiously wrong, Jefferson had made the
>better judgement, given the evidence available to him.

I was afraid of this.
To rephrase: I'm not so much appealing to authority than.. not
_claiming_, but having the feeling that your idea ultimately is a
variant of the conspiracy theory, i.e. despite the obvious inadequacy of
the evolution theory an awful lot of scientists think it's correct (if
you don't believe in conspiracy, you're saying they're stupid. While I
don't have difficulty with the idea of a stupid scientist, I do have
trouble imagining that all or even most of them being that.)

Since you're sure to bring this up: sure, scientists have been wrong
before. However, when presented evidence to the contrary, science has
changed (though of course individual scientists have clung to old
theories).

>
>In any case, to help you out, evolutionary theory requires (a) continued
>new genetic variation, and (b) elimination of existing variation
>[genetic drift, natural selection based on improved fitness].  The
>argument is, briefly, that new variation, where meaningful, cannot
>occur to the degree required by evolutionary theory.

Isn't this an assertion? Based on.. hmm, gut feeling?

>  A second line
>is that the evidence for common descent as a historical fact, regardless
>of evolutionary theory, is not as strong as it is generally given
>credit for.

I tend to agree on the 'historical fact' part. As a matter of fact, I'm
not sure I understand the term.
However (once again), 'common descent' I believe is a rather
straightforward conclusion based on evidence.

>
>Evolution involves both a claimed fact, common descent, and a claimed
>mechanism, genetic change.  To impeach evolution it suffices to impeach
>either the "fact" or the "mechanism".  Now the "fact" really rests on
>some plausibility assumptions.  For example, extant life forms over
>time vary.  The obvious explanations are quasi-continuous creation,
>and common descent.  The latter is an easier explanation to deal
>with because it requires no external intervention, natural or super-
>natural, and because it is more readily testable.

Let me interrupt: what the hell is 'natural external intervention'?

>  The natural predi-
>liction for the easy explanation should not blind us to the fact that
>it may be wrong.  The claim is that the available evidence is compatible
>with either explanation.  We must therefore turn to the mechanism;
>are there feasible and compelling mechanisms for evolution.  The
>claim here is that the postulated mechanisms are not adequate.  Ergo,
>since the dominant (natural) explanation has been refuted, the
>alternatives must be considered.

No, no.. you haven't refuted anything! You've just said, in effect, 'I
don't believe the mechanisms are adequate'.

>
>Does this clarify things for you?
>

Certainly. To me it seems you're just about on as thin ice as
'conventional' creationists.

>>OK, to repeat (my interpretation): In my view, evolution explains the
>>data. There is no data that is (are?) contradicting evolution. In my
>>view, if you want to remove the theory of evolution, you have to either
>
>>- present a better theory
>>- show some contradicting evidence
>
>You are confusing the general and the specific.  You are right in saying
>that to refute theory X, you have to either present a better theory
>or show some contradicting evidence.  I agree.  Bruce was, in my
>view, claiming that you had to do both.  I disagreed.
>
>As to the specific issue of your views, haven't we already established
>by your own admission, that your views are based on acceptance of
>authority rather than on data?
>

To a large extent, yes. I'm not a scientist (as a matter of fact, I
barely qualify as a student, but that's another story), therefore I
possibly can't have access to even a significant fraction of the data.
However (!), all the data I've seen seems to support evolution. I'm not
totally ignorant.

>>>Incidentally, stretch your mind a bit.  Suppose, hypothetically, that
>>>evolution were disproved.  How would you account for the evidence, i.e.
>>>the observed changes in life forms over time and the biological coherencies
>>>in existing life forms?
>
>>I won't, since in my view evolution is perfectly capable of explaining
>>that.
>
>I hope you realize that this is essentially a blind profession of faith,
>coupled with a refusal to consider alternatives to that faith.  It is
>just this attitude that gives aid and comfort to the Creationists who
>speak of the religion of Evolutionism, as though it were merely a 
>competing dogma coeval with their own.
>-- 

Come on. Why should I think up alternative theories when the existing
theories work well? Don't tell me you support the recently-posted
Larsonian universe too?
-- 
-Tero Sand
  EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi     Snail mail: Auroran Sairaala os. 6-1
  (if that doesn't work, try                    Nordenskioldinkatu 20
   cust_ts@kruuna.helsinki.fi)                  00250 Helsinki 25, Finland
Newsgroups: talk.origins