From: Chris Ho-Stuart <>
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Presbyterians
Date: 27 Apr 1999 05:06:18 GMT
Organization: Queensland University of Technology, Australia

Darren R Middleton <> wrote:
> Chris Ho-Stuart wrote in message <>...
> >One other side track into a pet concern of mine...
> >
> >This is likely to come across as a bit confrontational; but no
> >animosity is intended.
>
> G'day Chris,
>
> None will be taken.

Thanks muchly.

I would welcome the chance to debate this with anyone actually
able to present and defend a creationist position; but if this ever
happens I'll try to keep a ready ear for people who would like me
to take that particular debate elsewhere. But I think you do not
want to be the other side of such an extended discussion, and I
think you are not really competent to argue the other side.

Conversely, I have no formal training in biology and very little
in experimental sciences, so my assertions cannot carry any weight
on my own authority.  A lengthy debate is probably out of place;
so this will probably end in a cordial exchange of tough assertions.

> >Darren R Middleton <> wrote:
> >> Regarding our doctrinal position, all we ask is that whoever
> >> takes ordination vows does so with integrity. Chris I would
> >> say that in Victoria & Queensland that 100% of men completing
> >> their degrees hold to inerrancy - I would guess 85% or more
> >> would be creationists. In NSW the figure is probably 85-95%
> >> of graduates. SA is the weak state with perhaps a lower
> >> number again.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Darren Middleton
> >
> >Your comment on creationism surprises and dismays me.
>
> Why?

Because deliberate ignorance dismays me; and when combined
with religion it leaves me distinctly uneasy for the future.

> >The term can
> >have varying meanings; many people accept that God is the creator
> >of the universe; and many accept a strict literal interpretation
> >of Genesis.
>
> Well not all creationists would be six day literalists, although I suspect
> most would since it is reflected in the WCF which they subscribe to.
>
> >Some go further, and assert that the proposition of a strict literal
> >interpretation of Genesis is scientifically defensible, and that the
> >whole body of modern science is riddled with inconsistency which
> >prevents this proposition from having a fair hearing. This should
> >perhaps should be called scientific creationism -- an oxymoron if
> >ever there was one! -- and it is usually presented as in a form
> >that reads like a bad parody of scientific writing.
>
> Of course that is your spin on this, but there are many who would disagree
> with you, and do.

Sure. But they are wrong.

The publications of scientific creationism are almost without
exception lacking in any redeeming scientific value. That is
determined by examination of those publications on a case by case
basis; it is not a general conclusion based on some naturalistic
assumption that they have to be (sight unseen) worthless.

Believe in whatever model of origins you like. But beware of
linking your belief to the work of scientific creationists. That
is building on quicksand.

> >It is one thing to hold to a point of view because you consider
> >the bible (literally interpreted) to be a more reliable indicator
> >of truth than scientific study. That is okay. Incredibly naive,
> >but at least self consistent.
>
> Yes, I believe the Bible is more trustworthy than science.
> I also believe that science once it rids itself of its commitment to
> naturalism can show the credibility of design theory.

First statement is fine for a statement of where you place your
trust.

The second statement is more of a problem. I'd call it false.

The problem with design theory is not naturalism -- it is that
there is no such thing as design theory. (Shall we discuss Behe?)

Christianity is often credited with fostering the world view of
a well ordered universe guided by one great consistent divine
intelligence, which allowed a sensible examination of that order
and the consequent development of modern scientific inquiry. That is
all the naturalism needed: take that away and and design theory is
as powerless as anything else. Leave it in place and design theory
as an alternative to evolution is dead in the water.  The stamp of
evolution on our physical form is demonstrated.

Design theory as an assertion that there is a grand design underlying
the history of life is an interesting philosophical speculation; but
(so far) scientifically sterile. That does not mean it is wrong;
it only means that there is not actually a theory in the scientific
sense which serves as an explanatory framework which could lead to
any investigative research programs. It is not an alternative to
evolution; but more of a meta-explanation.

Design theory as a theoretical explanation for diversity that stands
as an alternative to evolution is merely stupid.  There is no such
theory which bears the slightest serious examination. (What Behe
presents is interesting, but flawed, and in any case not a theory.)

> >It is another thing entirely to
> >construct deliberately deceptive nonsense and pretend it is science.
>
> That is your charge, yes.
> I don't accept it, I think you believe it, even sincerely, but IMHO you
> are sincerely mistaken. As I have stated previously I do not pretend to be
> a scientist only an interested onlooker, but I know enough to see that
> there is no proof for evolution despite the constant dogma from some
> scientific circles that it should be taught as fact.

This "knowledge" is, I suspect, again based on sources that qualify
as disinformation.

Evolution as solidly proven as any other scientific theory you care
to mention. Yes. That's *any* other theory you care to mention. Bear
in mind that proof in science is inductive, not deductive.

Evolution is directly observed and applied in the field and the
laboratory. The mechanisms of change are demonstrable.  Processes
like genetic drift and selection are directly observed and studied
in the laboratory and in the field. Divergence of populations is
directly observed.

The broad history of life over the past many hundreds of millions
of years is established as solidly as anything can be in science.
Atomic dating -- despite various comments made in ignorance by well
meaning contributors to this forum -- puts accurate figures on
the age of extinct populations. For some lineages, comprehensive
histories of change can be exhibited and studied over millions of
years. Evolutionary theory puts together into a consistent framework
a large number of distinct observations on common descent and change
which would still need to be explained by any alternative theory.

There are some things we know thanks to science:

The Earth is (roughly) spherical

The Earth is very old (about 4.5 billion years)

Life has been around for a long time (over 3 billion years)

The forms of life in the past are very different from those


in existence now.

Multicellular life has been around for a long time (over


600 million years)

Populations diverge and change over the course of time.

Populations (in other words) evolve.
We know these facts like we know that the Earth orbits the Sun.

Within evolutionary biology there is plenty of active and even
acrimonious debate; on (for example) the relative importance of
drift and selection; the units of selection; particular evolutionary
lineages; the rates of change; the mechanisms of speciation etc.

None of these are alternatives to evolutionary theory. They are
arguments about filling in details.

> >I don't accuse you of that, by the way. But I am pretty darn
> >sure that you have been deceived by people who deliberately
> >aimed to mislead you about science.
>
> I have no doubt that some people *on both sides* manipulate quotes, facts,
> statistics etc. However, that does not discredit all those within science
> who reject evolutionary theory. With all due respect to you Chris, I hear
> this all the time, an attempt to poison the well by the science community.
>
> Anyone who believes in creationism is automatically involved in
> pseudoscience, it may convince some but not me. Furthermore, there are (I
> imagine) thousands of creationist & non evolutionary scientist who reject
> evolutionary theory.

People who believe in creationism are not automatically involved in
pseudoscience. They may just be rejecting (or ignoring) science
in favour of using certain forms of biblical interpretation.
Such people can be scientists (in other areas).

Most of scientists who reject evolutionary theory are people who
know almost nothing about it.  They are engineers, or chemists, or
psychologists, or whatever; and they do not directly investigate
evolutionary theory themselves.  The rejection is based purely
religious grounds, or else on a misplaced trust in the opinions of
others who claim to have done the direct investigation.

Where the pseudoscience comes in is at the point where some folk
purport to demonstrate, on the basis of scientific observation and
methodology, that evolution does not lead to massive diversity, or
that the Earth is young, or that we do not have non-human ancestors,
etc. This IS pseudoscience.

Again -- I can hardly emphasise this enough -- that judgement
is not just blanket dismissal of any conclusions which conflict
with established science. It is a judgement based on case by case
examination of the actual "observation" and "methodology" used.

> >Some time ago we were discussing arguments against evolution, and
> >you mentioned "Probabilities on abiogenesis (Morowitz at yale)".
>
> I can not recall of the top of my head (I have just skimmed through a
> dozen creationist Vs evolutionary books and failed to locate it, but I
> will have another look.)

Thanks. If you find it you could let me know by post or email.

Otherwise, we may choose to leave this as an exchange of very
different views with almost no common ground.

Best wishes -- Chris Ho-Stuart