Another netfriend:

You will note that scientists _always_ referr to previous publications from their peers (real or hopefull), any new evidence is postulated to build on these pre existing works, and their status is elevated from the original status of the author to empirical axiom.

Chris:

They do indeed refer to other work, but it is not elevated to axioms. Reference to previous work is mainly to present alternative or conflicting ideas; and to review what related work has done in the same area.

Previous work is also referenced when it gives some foundation for an existing study; but not because it is taken as axiomatic. It is referenced precisely so that the basis for any important assumptions can be checked. It is usual — and important — for a paper to indicate potential problems in that foundation; how they are addressed, and where the potential difficulties might arise. It is standard in scientific writing also to indicate directions where further study should be pursued.

Failing to give this kind of critical evaluation is frequently grounds for rejecting a paper for formal publication.

This is, in fact, the exact opposite of the axiomatic approach; and reflective of the problem that science does not, and cannot, work from a position of absolute certainty.

You appear to be suggesting a parallel between creationist application of the bible, and scientific reference of prior work. That parallel is invalid.

For Christians, the bible has a special status which is not superseded by the work of following theologians; it is foundational. For creationists this is also the case… and there is an additional aspect of a particular kind of literal interpretation which is not used in common by all Christians.

For scientists, the body of literature is continually growing, and does not form a single unified entity. All scientists aim to add to that conglomerate; and many aim to supplant past work entirely. Over time, and with review by the whole scientific community, certain insights and models pass the rigours of testing and become especially significant or useful; but always scientists aim to improve and extend what has gone before.

It is a bad flaw in a scientific paper to have references focused on old and established material; references should be as recent as possible; and (because of the critical way in which references are used) it is a positive advantage to be using material which is still tentative.

I am not suggesting that Christians and scientists are mutually exclusive. Many people are both; and they are uniquely well positioned to understand the chasm of difference between Christian reference to the bible, and scientific reference to prior scientific literature.

Another netfriend:

Why is it that Evolution is referred to as “Science” but has never been “demonstrated” and is not able to be “reproduced in laboratory conditions”? Science holds that for an hypothesis to be elevated to theory, it must be reproducible.

Chris:

There are some fundamental misunderstandings here of what science involves and how it works; and some secondary problems specifically related to evolution.

Repeatability in science refers to observations; not to the phenomenon being observed. Hence, for example, in geology it is good repeatable evidence to collect rocks from a locality and infer details of such things as a past volcanic eruption. This is common. It is also good repeatable science; not because we can reproduce the volcanic eruption either in a lab or in the field; but because anyone else can also go and collect more rocks from the same location, and repeat the observations. Similar examples can be given from other sciences.

To understand the word “theory”, a good exercise is to look in a library for books with “theory” in the title. What you find is a related body of methods and principles applicable to a set of related phenomena in some domain. Roughly, in science a theory is an explanatory framework that give relationships and models and structure to a body of evidence. Theories can be highly speculative, or they can be solidly confirmed; what makes them theories is whether or not they give this theoretical framework for relating phenomena.

Applying this to evolution; one obvious line of evidence is the fossil record. This is good repeatable evidence; anyone can collect fossils; and particularly significant fossils are made available for repeated observation and study by experts.

Without a theory, fossils are just funny rocks. A theory is something which gives a framework for relating and understanding the available evidence. An old pre-scientific theory is that they merely resembled living forms; in actuality they were emanations from the stars; or products of the rocks themselves.

However, as more and more fossils were found it became clear that they were the remains of once living creatures. This too, is a simple theory; helping make sense of the evidence.

Other early theoretical models for explaining fossils are that they were the remains of life drowned in Noah’s flood; or that they were the remains of a series of catastrophes in the past which wiped out all life, with periodic recreation of life on Earth in new forms. None of these models ever really attained universal acceptance. The evolutionary model, on the other hand, gave a far superior fit to the data, and quickly became widely accepted.

Evolution was far more comprehensive than the catastrophist models. In particular, with the advances in genetics and the rise of the “new synthesis” in evolutionary biology, evolution also became very much a lab based experimental science. The processes by which change arises were identified and studied directly; in the lab and in the field.

The processes of evolutionary change are studied in the present, and the traces of long histories of change are studied both in the genetic information carried with all living things, and with the traces they leave behind. The rates of change we study in the present are a good fit to the rates of change inferred by patterns of change seen in the past — with a few notable exceptions!

Another netfriend:

Evolution in all its denominations is _not_ in any way reproducable, many lauded proofs (eg: Peppered moths of Europe) have since fallen the way of Lamarkianism but the works after being shown as flawed, are still held as required building blocks of the current incarnation of the hypothesies.

Chris:

Actually, evolutionary processes are able to be studied repeatedly in the lab just fine; and reproducibility in the normal scientific sense of repeatable observation applies in spades for evidence of evolution in the past.

More seriously, we are now approaching cases where the water is muddied by flat out falsehoods.

Peppered moths (Biston betularia) are moths which have either light or dark colouration. In one of the clearest and easiest to understand demonstrations of natural selection in action; the moths were observed to be dominated by light, and then dark, and then light varieties. The moths rely on camouflage for protection from birds, and the effects of air pollution, a darker environment, and natural selection, has been demonstrated to be the major cause for the changes in colouration.

It is odd that creationists find this controversial. They are normally happy to endorse what they call “microevolution”; and they usually accept the obvious facts of selection and mutation in the short term. But in any case, for some reason the creationists have hit upon this simple demonstration of natural selection as some kind of fraud or failure.

Jonathan Wells is author of “Icons of Evolution”, which purports to list a number of pillars of evolutionary evidence which have fallen by the wayside. He is a major source for creationist claims with respect to the peppered moths. His website is here: <http://www.iconsofevolution.com/>

Another book is “Of Moths and Men” by Judith Hooper:

<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393051218/104-2730425-565596 9> This purports to tell a story of fraud and incompetence in the moth research.

Unfortunately, both these books are flawed beyond recovery by errors of fact and omitted details.

Hooper’s main focus is pioneering research by Kettlewell in the 1950s. Her charges of fraud and incompetence are over the top and unreasonable; but even so; a wealth of ongoing independent research (which most certainly did NOT treat Kettlewell’s experiments as axiomatic!) have confirmed the same major conclusions; natural selection from differential predation by birds is the major cause of colour change.

Well’s major focus appears to be about “staged photos” by Kettlewell; a charge which has a tragi-comic element in its incompetence. The photos which Wells finds so upsetting were actually simply given to show what the two colors of moths looked like. They were not data in the experiments at all. This criticism is merely idiotic.

Of course; this is just a brief sample of the dispute — such as it is. Those interested are welcome to explore further with the references I have given.

Another important source is a recent book: “Melanism: Evolution in Action” by M. E. N. Majerus (Oxford Uni Press, 1998) <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198549822/104-2730425-5655969>

This is a major work of critical review; and a good way to get a broad view of the scientific work over the last century which relates to the moths and other cases of change in skin color. This book also has some criticisms of Kettlewell’s methodology — which Wells is inclined to seize upon and blow out of all proportion. But Majerus also had this to say: […} the huge wealth of additional data obtained since Kettlewell’s initial predation papers (Kettlewell 1955a, 1956) does not undermine the basic qualitative deductions from that work. Differential bird predation of the typica and carbonaria forms, in habitats affected by industrial pollution to different degrees, is the primary influence of the evolution of melanism in the peppered moth.

Other sources for more information: a talkorigins FAQ on Well’s book: <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#moths> Bruce Grant: an active researcher on genetic and developmental polymorphisms in peppered-moth larvae; and the evolution of melanism in peppered moths. <http://faculty.wm.edu/bsgran/> Check out also Grant’s review of Hooper’s book: “Sour Grapes of Wrath”, in Science 2002, 297: pp940-941. He gives a link from his home page, but you may need a subscription to “Science” to read it, I think.

<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/297/5583/940?ijkey=3Yam/BuhfWbGQ &keytype=ref&siteid=sci>

Of course, most creationists are simply inclined to dismiss information from evolutionary scientists; but at the very least a quick glance at the references should be enough to show that the story of moths “falling by the wayside” is nonsense. It continues to be an excellent demonstration of natural selection, and actively studied.

Another netfriend:

I hold and maintain that Evolutionism is a greater leap of faith that Creationism because Evolutionism requires faith in past works since demonstrated faulty, with the final result being that everything is a “Happy Accident” before the eternal abyss of death, whereas Creationism requires faith in a God who provides a path to eternal life, whilst providing a moral code in this present life, and a reason for existance ather than “pure chance”

Chris:

The basis of your conclusion is now demonstrated faulty.

Another netfriend:

Am I a fundie? Probably, I claim the God that created _all_ in 6 days to be well able to save me from the sin of this world, and the author and finisher of my faith.

Chris:

To really get to grips with the scientific questions one way or the other, it is important to recognise that the belief in God as creator, saviour, and author and finisher of the faith is still held by many Christians who do not use a strict historical interpretation of the creation stories in Genesis.

You may disagree with them, of course; but as long as you have the mistaken impression that science is trying to reject the notion of God as creator and saviour you will never be able to give a fair examination of the arguments one way or the other.

On the other hand; no question but that modern science is completely inconsistent with a six day creation event.

Cheers — Chris Cheers — Chris