Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cbscd5.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!wivax!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!orion!houca!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscd5!pmd
From: pmd@cbscd5.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.misc
Subject: Faith in Evolution.
Message-ID: <220@cbscd5.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-Jun-83 14:25:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscd5.220
Posted: Wed Jun 22 14:25:05 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 24-Jun-83 20:22:51 EDT
Organization: Bell Labs , Columbus
Lines: 193



>From "Origins Research" Spring/Summer 1983

		A REPLY TO NILES ELDREDGE
		     by Jerry Kelly

In his new book, "The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at
Creationism" (Washington Square Press, 1982), Niles Eldredge
challenges creationism as being a religion because it:

	invokes faith (pg. 18)

	claims to know the ultimate truth (pg. 18,28,78)

	clings to the wisdom and world views of archaic Near
	Eastern culture (pg. 22)

	is based on pseudoscience (pg. 149,91)

	is nonfalsifiable (pg. 22)

	invokes the supernatural, i.e. mystical powers (pg. 10)

The intent of this article is not to falsify his challenge, but
rather to show how science/evolution exhibits all points except
one.  And this one point is the crux of the origins controversy
(Natural vs. Supernatural).

			SCIENTIFIC FAITH

What place does faith have in science?  Eldredge claims that science
has no place for faith.  "It (science) depends upon observation, accepts
nothing on faith, and acknowledges that it can never claim to know the
ultimate truth" (pg 18). Again Eldredge states: "But of course, science
is not a belief system" (pg. 27).

For most, the word faith implies a mental exercise in an environment of
pure ignorance.  Blind faith is probably what Eldredge had in mind.
However, he should be reminded that faith can be based on evidence.  To
the uninitiated, the accusation of faith in creationism is easy to accept,
because for some Christians and Jews the literal translation of Genesis
suffices as an explanation for origins.  To state that all creationists
therefore exercise blind faith is a gross overstatement.  Some
creationists have evidence for their faith.

The study of evolution is in many ways a scientific endeavor, but
this does not exempt the evolutionist from faith exercises.  As an
example consider the spontaneous generation scenario.

Many evolutionists except the notion that random processes alone
are sufficient to develop living systems.  This acceptance can be
classified as blind faith for several reasons:

	spontaneous generation has never been demonstrated.

	random processes are the driving force for spontaneous
	generation. Natural selection is only applicable to living systems.

	no complete chemical process is known. (If on knows of detailed
	molecular arguments of the self organization of matter starting
	from Miller's amino acid soup to a simple bacteria, please at the
	very least cite the references.)

Belief in the self-organization of matter is maintained even in light of
the fact that complex organic molecules are not stable. Most
evolutionists express their faith on some basis of "scientific continuity".

One only has to review the history of "science" to see other cases of blind
faith.  Nebraska man was constructed from only a single tooth of an extinct
pig.  The Piltdown man was a fraudulent construction that was not
completely dropped until 40 years after it's discovery.

Blind faith should always be held in contempt, however, faith with evidence
is very necessary for model building.  It may be called intellectual
speculation or an extrapolation from known data.  In his day, it was
acceptable for J.J. Thomson to hold the "Plum Pudding" model of the atom.

		ULTIMATE KNOWLEDGE - MACROEVOLUTION

Evolutionists have readily accepted macroevolution on the basis of micro-
evolutionary examples.  Consider Eldredge's reaction after reviewing the
English peppered moth (Biston betularia): "But I was not prepared to find
creationists--particularly Parker and Gish, perhaps the two most eloquent
creation 'biologists'--actually accepting the moths as examples of small-
scale evolution by natural selection" (pg. 114).  Again Eldredge comments,
"Biologists are understandably amazed by such statements. Can creationists
actually admit that evolution occurs and still stick to their creationist
guns and deny that evolution has produced the great diversity of life?
In a word--Yes! (pg.144).

Note that Eldredge makes no distinction between micro- or macroevolution.
Parker and Gish are not so naive as to contradict themselves.

The differentiation to life need not be completely characterized by positive
linear progression, but may in fact be the result of isolated groups which
experienced bounded oscillating characteristics.  The creationists have not
blindly accepted the evolutionist's "ultimate knowledge" of macroevolution.

			ARCHAIC THEORIES

The accusation that creationism is old does not prove it false.  Even
evolutionary thinking goes back to the Greeks. Showing an idea to be old
only illustrates the idea to be old, nothing else.  The particle idea
of light was an old idea that was dropped and then later revised.

		   PSEUDOSCIENCE AND HONESTY

Pseudoscience is an activity characterized by concealing facts which could
jeopardize one's pet model.  This has been manifested by proponents on both
sides of the origins issue.

On pages 130-131, Eldredge raises a serious challenge concerning Parker's
honesty in correctly reporting interviews with various paleontologists.
On the other hand, I was amazed to see how Eldredge handled the assumptions
associated with the dating process.  He offered no justification for
parent/daughter initial ratios or contamination.  His main defense was
concerned with decay rates.  "Though some laboratory experiments showing
that extremes of temperature and pressure fail to alter decay rates, it is
true that we must make this assumption" (pg.102).

For some of the other laboratories which were able to induce/observe a
decay rate change, the reader may want to consider:

	Hensley, W. K., Passet, W. A. Huizenga J. R.  "Pressure
	Dependence of the Radioactive Decay Constant of Beryllium-7"
	Science, Vol. 181, Sept. 21, 1973. (pp. 1164-1165)

	Anderson, J. L., "Non-Poisson Distributions Observed During
	counting of certain carbon-14 Labeled Organic (Sub) Mono-
	layers"  Journal of Physical Chemistry, Vol. 76, No. 24 1972.
	(pp.3603-3612)

	Emery, G. T.  "Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates"  Annual
	Review fo Nuclear Science, Vol. 22, 1972 (pp.165-197)

At the same level of pseudoscience is the activity of misrepresentation.
As on example consider Eldredge's statement that "None of them (creation
scientists) has contributed a single article to any reputable scientific
journal" (pg.83).  Robert V. Gentry, Associate Professor of Physics at
Columbia Union College, has contributed a number of scientific papers,
but the cost has been great.  (For just three papers the reader may review:
Science Vol 173, pg.727 (1971); Science Vol. 184, pg. 62 (1974); and
Science Vol 194, pg 315 (1976)). There is evidence which strongly suggests
that his National Science Foundation grant was not renewed because of
his stand on creation issues.

Another statement which encourages one to question Eldredge's honesty is
"Creationists are forced to deny the earth is older that a few ten
thousand years" (pg.33). Although many well known creationists are denying
an old earth, not all creationists concur on this issue.

			CONCLUSION

Science should always contend for naturalistic explanations.  However,
the origins issue may not be completely scientific.  Science can not deny
the existence of a supernatural power.  Since the concept of God is still
valid, the concept of God's participation in nature is still valid.
(Other philosophical issues may need to be answered.)  Thus the concept
of supernatural acts is still valid.

Whatever happened, the evidence is in the rocks.  This evidence is in
no way conclusive for macroevolution.

Should the dust ever settle in this controversy, (assuming all the mud
dries up) I predict that neither side will be successful in falsifying
the opponent's model.  Before this issue dies, each side will have a
more abundant collection of supportive evidence, and a realization
of faith's involvement.

[end of quote]

Origins Research is an intercampus college newspaper published
bianually by Students of Origins Research, a non-profit organization.
The purpose of the newspaper is to provide a means for students and
educators to critically analyze the evolution and creation models of
origins.

I would encourage all who consider themselves knowledgeable on the 
creation/evolution issue to write this organization of subscription
information (free to students or educators, $2.00/yr. otherwise).
The address is:

	Origins Research
	P.O. Box 203
	Goleta CA 93116

They seem to consider both sides of the issue in an objective manner.
Both evolutionists and creationist are encouraged to contribute
articles and letters.  The organization seems to have won the respect
of both evolutionists and creationists.

Paul Dubuc