NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/k12/ed/science/1795

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 4.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!lll-winken!imager!dk
From: dk@imager (Dave Knapp)
Newsgroups: k12.ed.science
Subject: Re: Evolution
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 92 22:14:32 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Laboratory for Experimental Astrophysics
Lines: 95
Nntp-Posting-Host: imager.llnl.gov

In Article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Bruce Hogan) writes:

 <long anti-evolution post deleted>

   Bruce's post contains a number of tired anti-evolution
"evidences" that have been destroyed many times over; however, I
think his post does have a lot of value for science students.
That's because his post exemplifies perfectly the way that
scientific arguments should NOT be carried out.  As a scientist,
I am very careful when I am talking to colleagues or to
non-scientists to use accepted norms for logic and argument to
advance my ideas.  One of the most striking differences between
"creation-scientists" and real scientists is the way they go
about presenting their cases.

   Just for the record, one can believe in Creation without being
a "creationist."  Most Christians (myself included) believe firmly
that God created the universe and everything in it.  I suppose
that technically makes them creationists.  However, the word
"creationist" has come to mean someone who believes that the
universe was created less than 10,000 years ago, that there was a
literal Noachim flood, and that Adam and Eve were not descended
from other living creatures.

With that in mind, let me show you how Bruce's arguments differ
from standard scientific ones.

1.)  Bruce resorts to an argument mode called "ad hominem," which
is Latin for "to the man."  That is, he attempts to discredit the
theory of evolution by attacking those who believe in it.

> You may also consider that the Creation model is not rejected by
> many because it doesn't fit the observable facts, but rather
> because it requires a personal Creator, which is not acceptable
> to the Humanism that is the order of the day in our educational
> system.

  You see, here he manages to insinuate that those who reject a
young Earth do so not because they are honest scientists, but
because they don't want to believe in God.  This kind of argument
is insulting, false, and not scientific.

2.)  Bruce writes a great deal about the "Creation model," but
nowhere defines it or details any predictions it makes or any
evidence for it.  Every single one of his "evidences" is
presented as evidence AGAINST evolution.  He never presents any
evidence in favor of the (yet-to-be-defined) "creation model."
This, by the way, is a red flag for pseudoscience: you will find
that frequently the adherents to pseudosciences spend most of
their time attacking so-called "mainstream science" and
practically no time developing testable predictions for their won
theories.

3.)  Bruce misrepresents evolution.  He claims a prediction for
evolution that it does not make:

> simply  ask for the millions of examples that should be there if
> evolution is a  billions-of- years process with billions upon
> billions upon billions of  mutations and trials and errors.

I'll let others more qualified than I am explain why this
statement is completely bogus.  My point is just that Bruce has
created a non-existent "straw man" of evolution.

4.)  Bruce misrepresents science itself:

> And, since none of us were there, both systems are a system of
> faith when neither one can be scientifically proven.  Scientific
> proof requires a duplication of the event.  Not possible here.

I think we've already seen that "scientific proof" is an
oxymoron.  Think about the implications of Bruce's last
statement, though: that a scientific explanation of an event
requires duplication of the event.  With a single broad stroke,
Bruce has completely nullified entire fields of accepted science;
for example, astronomy, which is an observation science that by
its very nature cannot duplicate events.

   In summary, try to look at Bruce's post from a scientific,
rather than a rhetorical, viewpoint.  His arguments (which are
not his; he got them from the sources he cites) are persuasive,
to be sure; they have been developed over many years by people
who are very good at making persuasive-sounding arguments.  But
they are not scientifically sound.

   That is the lesson here -- there is a big difference between a
persuasive argument and a sound argument.

  -- Dave
--
  *-------------------------------------------------------------*
  * David Knapp        [e-mail]       [phone]  *
  *            98.7% of all statistics are made up.             *
  *-------------------------------------------------------------*