Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Ethics 'n Stuff Message-ID: <945@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 19-Apr-85 16:15:06 EST Article-I.D.: uwmacc.945 Posted: Fri Apr 19 16:15:06 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 22-Apr-85 01:29:34 EST Distribution: net Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center Lines: 167 Michael Ward has replied to my defense of the ethical charges against Ray Miller. It should be noted that my original comments were related specifically to SOR4 (The Fossil Record). No broadening of scope is stated or implied for my comments here. >>[Paul DuBois] >>As an alternative, evolution may legitimately be discussed >>as gradualistic on the strength of two simple observations. The first >>is that gradualism is, after all, the reigning orthodoxy (though its >>rule is challenged ever more vigorously in the scientific community). >>The second is that to most people, evolution means Darwin, and Darwin >>was a gradualist. Thus, to many if not most people (even educated >>ones), evolution *means* gradualism. This state of affairs will >>probably be different within a couple of decades, but I think that it >>can hardly be denied to exist at the present time. >>This being so, a portrayal (and critique) of evolution on gradualist >>grounds provides an analysis which begins where people *are*, not where >>they ought to be or where we'd like them to be. I see nothing wrong >>with this. > ........ >>But in a pamphlet >>intended for general consumption by undergraduates (who, at least for >>the time being, are more than likely gradualists if they are anything), >>there is little value in giving more attention to this phenomenon than >>observing that it exists. > [Michael Ward] > There is something wrong with this. The thing that is wrong with this > is closely related to the many requests that have been made in this > newsgroup for a statement of the creationist theory. The only > arguments I am aware of for creationism rely on the (implicit or > explicit) presumption that creationism is the only reasonable > alternative to evolution. Thus, debunking evolution is sufficient to > establish creationism. This is certainly the methodology used by Ray > Miller in his pamphlets. It is a common technique to prove that X is true by showing that not-X is false. The question is whether creation and evolution are the only alternatives. They are. There is, ultimately, no alternative to evolution but creation. If evolution did not occur here, then life was created, or it came from somewhere else. If it came from somewhere else. If it did not evolve there, it was either created or it came from somewhere else. Iterate until exhausted. One may say that there are other alternatives to DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE ON EARTH than evolution of life from non-life or creation of life (e.g., panspermia). Fine. But that doesn't really change the ultimate question. Be that as it may, one (the creationist in particular) is still faced with the need to present positive evidence for his viewpoint, for the obvious reason that evolution, even if successfully debunked, may fail to stay debunked in the light of new developments. If knowledge in the area of the study of origins were static, then indeed a disproof of evolution would be proof of creation. But such knowledge is not static. In any case, the objection that Ray did not present positive evidence is not correct. He certainly did present what he considers evidence consistent with his creation model (e.g., gaps, sudden appearance of fully-developed forms). You may not accept this as evidence, but it is not true that he has failed to present any for consideration. Also, Ray DID mention alternatives to gradualism, even if they were not discussed much. Thus he did not focus exclusively on gradualism. > Even granting, for the sake of argument (and only for that sake), that > this was a legitimate method of attack, one is still faced with the > need to debunk evolution, rather than one particular school of > evolution. Of course. > The existence of the theory of punctuated equilibrium as a respected > school of science is by itself enough to absolutely invalidate any > debunking of gradualism, or Darwinism, as a defense of creationism. Not quite. The existence of a *credible* theory of p.e. is enough. Simply multiplying alternatives to gradualism is a meaningless exercise. (I am not saying that p.e. is not credible, only that the statement above is not quite correct...) But I have never stated that an invalidation of gradualism, or anything else, is a satisfactory defense of creationism, nor, I believe, does Ray hold with that, either. It is a (necessary?) part of that defense, but does not constitute a complete formulation in any sense. However, the real response to your statement is simply that a good deal of Ray's presentation is not specific to gradualism. > The presence of acceptable alternatives requires one to actually > present evidence that, by itself, supports one's claim. The debunking > method must debunk all possible (or at least credible) theories of > evolution, not just gradualism. Quite so. But my purpose was to examine the charges against Ray Miller, not to present evidence. As you well know, I have never addressed myself to that. > In the face of this, for someone to present a debunking of gradualism > as a defense of creationism, merely because his audience is unaware of > the acceptable alternatives, creates a severe ethical problem. He is > likely to win a few debaters points, but at the risk of subjecting > himself to charges of chicanery. I don't agree with this at all. (i) Ray did present what he considers to be positive evidence. Thus he is not simply trying to discredit evolution because he supports his own side. Whether one agrees that his evidence is *good* evidence or not, is irrelevant, I think, because your complaint is with his method, and his method is not purely discreditation. (ii) Ray doesn't attack gradualism only. Much of his presentation is not specific to that particular formulation of evolution. (iii) Ray's presentation *does*, however, give greatest *emphasis* to gradualism. But, as I have said, this is entirely appropriate. Gradualism holds sway, and one attacks the citadel, not the outhouse. Should he focus on, e.g., Gorczynski and Steele, instead? That would be foolish. > Perhaps the most significant difference between the scientific forum > and the public forum that creationists choose is that in the > scientific forum, winning one debate is not likely to gain you much. And it will do so in the public forum? I'm skeptical. > Scientists in any field are very likely to be aware of the issues that > are raging in that field, and will remember what a proponant of an idea > says from one day to the next. In the fields of science, people are > very sensitive to dishonest practices, and tend to get ugly when they > see evidence of such practices. Whereas in the public forum people are insensitive to dishonesty. No, I don't think you mean *that*. You mean that the public will not be informed enough to even know that there is dishonestly going on, and so are likely to be deceived. Correct? Well, WHOSE FAULT IS IT THAT THEY DON'T KNOW ABOUT ALTERNATIVE THEORIES?? What do you see in the textbooks? Darwin! Aren't you saying, in effect, that if the creationist wishes to attack evolution, he must not only "debunk" gradualism, he must also educate the general public as to all the alternative theories, and then debunk them? It seems to me that the responsibility for dissemination of information relating to alternative theories of evolution rests squarely on the shoulders of the evolutionist. Don't you agree? I DO NOT accept the responsibility to educate the public about YOUR theories. (As an illustration of the poor job evolutionists do of transmitting information about their work, consider that the first place I learned of punctuated equilibrium was in an ICR publication! One might hypothesize that I only read creationist literature, but I don't. I read very little of it, actually.) -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |