From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Atheistic creationism -- a tutorial
Date: 26 Sep 92 07:18:53 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep24.111648.18879@klaava.Helsinki.FI> cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.061349.18102@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>>As the man said, what we have here is a failure to communicate.  I made
>>a two pronged attack.  One one hand I argued that there was not enough
>>physical evidence of the historical kind (fossils) and that the biological
>>evidence was equivocal.  On the other hand I argued that the postulated
>>mechanisms of evolution, e.g. natural selection, genetic drift, and
>>mutation as a source of adaptive genetic variation were radically
>>inadequate.

>OK. However, I fail to see how it is inadequate. Please don't reply that
>this is only indication of _my_ 'inadequateness', since there obviously
>is a huge number of scientists who feel likewise (this is no proof for
>evolution, obviously.)

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.

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.  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.

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.  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.

Does this clarify things for you?

>>Have you addressed these arguments?  No.  Has anyone addressed these
>>arguments in any meaningful way?  No.  If one were to judge the issue
>>by the evidence of the postings in this group on this topic, one
>>might have to conclude that I had blown evolution out of the water
>>with irrefutable arguments. [Chris, stop giggling.]

>Here I [kinda] agree. I hope some of these more knowledgeable people
>(than me, naturally) would address your issues.

Give them time.  They will.  I fancy they are waiting to see how
many rabbits I can pull out of the hat.

>>However I will reiterate the original point.  Bruce, on my reading, was
>>making the claim that the critic of an existing theory or paradigm was
>>under the obligation to offer a replacement.  I was making the counter
>>claim that the critic is under no such obligation.  Indeed, the negative
>>result is essential part of science. 

>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?

>>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.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
From: Ken.Stuckas@f2020.n112.z1.fidonet.org (Ken Stuckas)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP