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