Posted on 02/11/2005 9:29:29 PM PST by restornu
At Dummy Underground.
And here is RWA's post I was referring to.
I almost fell out of my chair laughing ;)
Serious reading comprehension deficits on display. I was asked if the author's alleged misquoting of another person "worried me" I said no it "bothers me." Check post 36 from me and 66 from you. Now, am I supposed to believe you can read creationists straight? Sheesh. Your out.
Here is an example of what I would call a good exchange between an evolutionist and someone who has major criticisms and an alternative idea. I don't think either guy is an idiot, a charlatan, a bufoon or a liar. They are coming from different perspectives and having what looks for all the world like an honest debate. Eeeegads, imagine that.
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho36a.htm
And for the record he makes no bones about it, he is a creationist in the sense that he believes God created the universe.
PS: Korthof is a sharp guy as well.
OK.
According to this dialogue though, Spetner is about 2 things. A) Demolishing Neo Darwinian Theory as a method for explaining the overall diversity of life. B) Proposing that evolutionary theory be re-constituted on a non-random footing. But he expressly does not claim he can account for the scope of life's diversity with his new speculative theory nor does he consider it necessary to offer a new theory before trashing the old one.
These are traits that I believe will distinguish the new anti-evolutionist concensus that may emerge. Even chinese scientists may join in the fight against Darwin without showing any interest in joining the design inference movement. Spetner steers clear of most of the things that most agitate the strong Darwin advocates and I happen to appreciate that.
I personally, as a theist and non-scientist am against ID as I understand it. It is one thing to doubt that Neo Darwinian Theory can account for biological diversity or be unconvinced by the case it presents. It is another to say that God did not create some mechanism to perpetuate his creative intelligence through time. In fact I'd go the other way and insist that all things in nature do perpetuate creative intelligence. nature is not some dead unintelligent set of laws, it is God's revelation to man through atoms. So why can't biology extend itself using His blueprints?
According to this dialogue though, Spetner is about 2 things. A) Demolishing Neo Darwinian Theory as a method for explaining the overall diversity of life. B) Proposing that evolutionary theory be re-constituted on a non-random footing. But he expressly does not claim he can account for the scope of life's diversity with his new speculative theory nor does he consider it necessary to offer a new theory before trashing the old one.
These are traits that I believe will distinguish the new anti-evolutionist concensus that may emerge. Even chinese scientists may join in the fight against Darwin without showing any interest in joining the design inference movement. Spetner steers clear of most of the things that most agitate the strong Darwin advocates and I happen to appreciate that.
I personally, as a theist and non-scientist am against ID as I understand it. It is one thing to doubt that Neo Darwinian Theory can account for biological diversity or be unconvinced by the case it presents. It is another to say that God did not create some mechanism to perpetuate his creative intelligence through time. In fact I'd go the other way and insist that all things in nature do perpetuate creative intelligence. nature is not some dead unintelligent set of laws, it is God's revelation to man through atoms. So why can't biology extend itself using His blueprints?
In his book he had a chapter on convergent evolution and the probability thereof using math and models taken from the science literature. Interesting.
FWIW, I'm a Catholic who believes that God created the universe and the mechanisms He used are up to Him. I keep an open mind about such things because neither evolution nor abiogenesis would affect my faith.
Now if you could create a universe ex nihlo and fill it with matter and the laws of physics, I might rethink my position.
RIght but in the discussion I linked to he expressly stays away from saying his alternative hypothesis can account for "Evolution A" he is trying to stay scientific and avoid the "God inference" while doing science. Agree with you on God and science I suspect.
He keeps his religion and science separate only up until a certain point. If one is a relgious person that is all you can do. It is impossible to ask more. That is why he addresses it in his last comments to Gert Korthof.
That's what I'm asking you. Are they all idiotic?
I've already said that I haven't seen a good one. But maybe I've misunderstood, or missed the killer ones. Behe and Demski's output is singularly unimpressive; it is easy to see why they usually skip the peer-review process. Largely arguments from personal ignorance and probability theory being applied to processes that are not what any biologist believes to happen. There is little recognition in their work of what the other side's arguments might be. Dembski likes to argue from authority; He replies to critiques if they are from people less highly qualified than himself using argument from personal authority while completely ignoring critiques from his peers. And so on.
Ha ha ha. Of course not...
I smell a rat. The author of this article graduated from U.C.Berkeley. This is a leftist disinformation operation making Christians appear stupid and thus undermining the conservatives unity.
What they don't understand is no matter how low the IQ on the creationist side is, the DUmmies are lower.
I've already said that I haven't seen a good one.
_______________________________________________________
Have you ever been exposed to Lee Spetner's thinking? One of his criticisms is that the evolutionists haven't adequately measured the amount of genome development they propose happened, the amount of time they think was available for it to happen, and reconciled the two based on what we know about the rate of various types of mutations, the likelihood they will bring an advantage, the number of beneficial mutations likely to be necessary to make a new species etc. I find that line of inquiry interesting. It seems to me an ID type and an evolutionist type should be able to have a productive discussion around it because both can discuss measurable things that happen under observation and project frequencies etc.
There are lots of other issues like this too.
Have you ever read Thomas Kuhn's classic on scientific revolutions?
One thing I've observed is that the pro-evolution folks unhesitatingly insist that if someone could undermine evolutionary theory, they could make a real name for themself and that science is value neutral in this regard. However, in my observations, the "science" around AIDS and the "science" around global warming and the "science" around homosexuality or male female differences etc is highly politically charged and that those who don't towe the line can quicky become professionally marginalized.
Kuhn's book suggests this is the NORM for the scientific community not the exception during times when a theory is being challenged. The allocation of research funding is far from value free in many fields.
You've prompted me to examine various synopses of books like "Not by Chance". Spetner may well have something to say. As far as I can determine he accepts the overwhelming evidence for the following:
An ancient universe and earth
The fossil record and DNA evidence for common descent
I'd guess that he rejects a literal reading of Genesis including the Creation and Noah's Ark.
Those beliefs place him a long way away from the overwhelming majority of FR creationist posters. And a long way from the creationists (liars) who run sites like AiG, ICR, DrDino etc.
What he appears to be arguing about is the precise mechanism of mutation and selection. I haven't read his books but I'd guess that refutations of his opinions would be beyond my limited ability, which is unusual for evolution-denying texts (which can usually be refuted with under-graduate science and a little careful thought/research). A glance through google suggests that many biologists don't find what he has to say particularly convincing, but as I say I lack the knowledge to assess the worth of his arguments myself. That makes him unusual. I imagine that the real experts like ichneumon might have something to say.
Stark's standards of scholarship are abysmal. There's so much in this relatively short text that is distorted, blatantly wrong, or stupidly hyperbolic that I could just about start anywhere. Take the discussion of the Huxley-Wilberforce encounter, for instance:
"I was happy enough to be present on the memorable occasion at Oxford when Mr. Huxley bearded Bishop Wilberforce. ... Then [Wilberforce] turning to his antagonist with a smiling insolence, he begged to know, was it through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed descent from a monkey? On this Mr. Huxley ... spoke these tremendous words. He was not ashamed to have a monkey for an ancestor; but he would be ashamed to be connected with a man who used his great gifts to obscure the truth. No one doubted his meaning and the effect was tremendous."This marvelous anecdote has appeared in every distinguished biography of Darwin and of Huxley, as well as in every popular history of the theory of evolution.
EVERY distinguished biography and EVERY popular history, eh? Blanket assertions of this sweep rarely survive much scrutiny. Even if this one were not wildly wrong (which it is) consider, just on the face of it, what an intemperate and incautious claim this is for a supposed scholar to make. The Darwin literature runs to many hundreds of volumes. Has the Sociologist Stark justified this broad assertion by surveying even a fraction of it? Apparently not.
I was fully aware of multiple and varying accounts of Wilberforce's and Huxley's 1860 exchange at Oxford solely from reading the standard sources which Stark claims suppresses them. I found nothing new when I later came across quibbles and debunkings from antievolutionists, at lest until today. Although I've read extensively on Darwin, the Darwinian controversies, and associated figures, I was until now unfamiliar with the specific account Stark quotes! I do have a copy of Irvine's Apes, Angels, and Victorians, the one example Stark provides, but only dipped into it enough years ago to decide that it was a popularization not using the best or latest sources and not worthy of my time. Apes, Angels actually uses Huxley's Life and Letters for most of the details, but uses the above for the crucial quotes from both Wilberforce and Huxley.
If anyone is curious, here's the full cite for Stark's "A Grandmother's Tale's" (apparently so titled because it contained other reminiscences, that is the "Grandmother" appears to be the author, not Huxley's ape ancestor as mooted by Wilberforce): Macmillan's Magazine, LXXVIII, no. 468, Oct. 1898, pgs. 433-4. Here's a good article that gives a longer and seemingly complete quotation of the relevant passage, and much else besides: Lucas, J. R. ``Wilberforce and Huxley: A Legendary Encounter'', The Historical Journal, 22, 2 (1979), pp. 313-330. Scroll down to the bottom and note that Lucas participated (as the Bishop) in a recreation of the Wilberforce-Huxley encounter with Darwin scholar Janet Browne. There are links to his preparatory notes and a "semi-transcript" of the recreation.
Most of my library is packed away, but so you don't have to rely on my recollections I clambered into the attic to root around and pull out a few relevant volumes.
I only have one biography of Huxley, Mario A. Di Gregorio's T.H. Huxley's Place in Natural Science (Yale Univ Press, 1984). It's coverage of the Wilberforce encounter is as follows (in total, the ellipses deleting concatenated material addressing other issues) from page 151:
Huxley is widely thought of as ... the man who defeated the church at Oxford ... [This] point overstates what really happened at Oxford; historians are now aware that there is no reliable account of the Oxford clash between Huxley and Wilberforce [two footnotes to scholarly works on the correspondence of Hooker and biographical writings of Huxley].
One strike for Stark.
Adrian Desmond and James Moore's Darwin certainly qualifies as a "distinguished biography," and is my personal favorite. Their discussion of the Oxford meeting runs eight pages, 492-499. Here's a bit from the beginning (emphasis, italics, added, but the 'scare quotes' are in the original):
Every potential triumph was now talked up by the evangelical Darwinians. Feeling themselves beleaguered, they needed visible gains. Thus it was that a witty bit of repartee on Saturday 30 June 1860 ... was destined to be blown out of all proportion to become the best known 'victory' of the nineteenth century, save Waterloo.
In general this account deflates the mythological and triumphalist account that Stark falsely characterizes as universal. There are fourteen footnotes, many listing three and four distinct sources, both original sources and scholarly works, NOT including "A Grandmother's Tale's".
Strike two for Stark.
Janet Browne's is one of the major Darwin biographies. Unfortunately I only have the first volume which concludes well before 1860. Anyone have the second? Browne is a careful and important scholar of Darwin, and in spite of her recent participation as a stand in for Huxley in the recreation with Lucas, I'd bet a fair sum that she offers a fair account that takes in all sources.
Next in the stack I pulled from the attic is Charles Darwin's own autobiography but the Wilberforce incident is not covered.
Next up is Darwin: A Life In Science by Michael White and John Gribbin (Dutton, 1995). This is another book I collected (cheap at a used book store) but never bothered to read as Gribbin is not a Darwin specialist. Gribbin's account of the Oxford clash, pages 221-24, comes the closest yet to Stark's fraudulent characterization. But even Gribbin, who openly favors the view that Wilberforce was shamed and Huxley triumphant, notes several times that others disagree. His sole footnote cites the Lucas paper I link above.
Gribbin does use the more extreme version of Wilberforce quote -- wherein Wilberforce asks whether Huxley's ape ancestry was on his grandfather's or grandmother's side of the family, disparagement of grandmothers being course and shocking in the Victorian context. (Other contemporary accounts suggest Wilberforce less offensively referred to Huxley's own belief in ape ancestry without bringing grandmothers into it. Still other accounts don't mention any apish comments being related specifically to Huxley's ancestry.) But, although of similar type, Gibbin's quotes do not appear to come from "A Grandmother's Tale's".
In short the reader is clearly informed that Gribbin is offering a traditional account that is disputed.
This should be strike three, but I'll be very charitable and give Stark a foul instead.
Next up is Richard Milner's delightfully eclectic The Encyclopedia of Evolution: Humanity's Search for Its Origins (Facts On File, 1990). The first listing of "Wilberforce" in the index leads to the entry on John Lubbock, where it is simply noted that "Lubbock gave a long, effective defense of Darwinism using evidence from embryology" at the Oxford meeting.
The next listing for Wilberforce is the entry "MILITARY METAPHOR: 'Warfare' of Science vs. Religion". Here Milner, despite being an enthusiastic evolutionist, takes an opposite tack from the scientific confrontationalism that Stark dogmatically attributes to his ilk. Citing (evangelical Christian) James R. Moore's The Post Darwinian Controversies (an excellent work that I also retrieved from the attic, but maybe more on it in a later message) Milner pours water on the heated rhetoric often associated with science and religion issues, pointing out that many leading scientistists, including many evolutionists, were "believers in traditional Christianity," that "the vast majority of early naturalists and geologists were actually Churchmen themselves," that those who unveiled the records of ancient life were pursuing the aim of "reconciling the geological record with the Bible," and so on.
Wilberforce also makes a brief appearance in the entry for Roderick Murchison, wherein it's noted that the Bishop gave a speech in 1849 honoring the eminent geologist and declaring him, to hurrahs from all assembled, the "modern King of Siluria" (for the geologic system, The Silurian, which Murchison identified and named) as he had so greatly extended the realm held by the ancient king Caractacus.
However in coming to Milner's entry "OXFORD DEBATE: 'Darwin's Bulldog' vs. The Bishop," and despite having elsewhere noted that such confrontations were not representative of relations between science and religion, and having depicted Wilberforce as a booster of modern science, here Milner give us only the triumphalist version of the event. Wilberforce is depicted as "overconfident" rather than mendacious, but we get the "grandmother" version of his question, we get Huxley responding "calmly" (his own account, although others, including Darwin's close friend Hooker, who was on-stage, have the effectiveness of his response marred by excessive agitation) and we have the room "rebound[ing] in laughter" (the closest, btw, any of these accounts come, including Apes, Angels to Stark's false assertion that "every writer tells how the audience gave Huxley an ovation").
Now if we evaluate Stark's actual claim, that "every distinguished biography of Darwin and of Huxley, as well as in every popular history of the theory of evolution" invokes "this marvelous account" -- "A Grandmother's Tale's" published decades after the event -- then he has been consistently wrong by the evidence of my own library, for even Milner does not detectably use the 1898 magazine blurb. (He has no footnotes, but seems to be using original if selective sources such as Huxley's own contemporary account.) However I've been applying a more reasonable standard than Stark's own, and simply asking whether each book offers only the triumphalist version of events (Huxley triumphant, Bishop shamed) and suppresses sources that suggest it may have been otherwise, or whether the book includes or at least acknowledges a fulsome range of the divergent contemporary accounts that exist in the historical record.
On this ground, with the count at two strikes, Stark finally gets a base hit with Milner. But based on this sample, randomly chosen from the books I had to hand, it's pretty clear that Milner will strike out before he gets a runner in.
Other specific claims by Stark about the Oxford meeting, or how it has been presented, will be examined in a later message when I have the time. We will find that Stark's mythologizing and slovenly, biased scholarship is at least as bad as what he (often falsely in the universalism of his denunciations) accuses others of.
I could, and possibly will, time permitting, tear this mess apart on other counts as well. It is an utter load.
Incidentally the very title of Spetner's book, "Not By Chance" had my lip curling and I almost didn't bother to investigate anything about it once I had read its title. It is a common creationist travesty to say that evolution proceeds solely by chance. Nothing could be further from the truth.
100, another prime number!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.