Subject: Re: Creationism (was Re: "With All That You Acquire, Acquire
Understanding")
Date: 21 Jan 2000 07:31:59 GMT
From: Chris Ho-Stuart <>
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

I have snipped the initial section on misuse of research. Darren is
quite right; I did jump the gun and misread his post on this point.
I have already retracted my hasty words, and appreciate Darren's
restrained and polite response.

Darren R Middleton <> wrote:
[snip]
>>> I'm sure you're equally upset with many high school textbooks that
>>> still trundle out all the misleading examples of macro evolution
>>> on the mechanism of micro evolution (via extrapolation) ie  industrial
>>> melanism, finch beaks or antibiotic resistance  (which creationists
>>> since Paley have argued for & accepted). Or those evolutionists who
>>> speak of macro evolution as a "fact" like apples fall downwards from
>>> a tree etc.
>>
>>Rubbish. I do not think you really know what you are talking
>>about here. No offense intended. Cite the text books which cause
>>you concern.  The examples you give above persuade me that you are
>>utterly incapable of mounting any serious defense of the texts being
>>"misleading".
>
> "Evolution is a fact, like the fact that apples fall downwards from
> trees." "Almost everyones's guide to Science" J. Gribbon, Pg 124.

Gribbon's statement is quite correct.

However, I cannot get his book at short notice, and it does not
really sound like a text book, so I will for the time being not
attempt to defend his remark or my endorsement of it.

I note for the record that the fact of evolution is universally
recognized by all except a tiny minority of fringe dissenters.
By "fact of evolution" I am not referring to "microevolution", or
to biogenesis, or to any form of strict materialism.

I mean that it is accepted as fact that life has been around on
Earth for billions of years, that it has changed in form over that
time, and that the changes are cummulative in diverging lineages.

Students will get a totally inaccurate idea of the whole field
of biology if they are not told plainly that the facts of
macroevolutionary change and common descent and long histories
of diverging lineages were settled last century, and have not
been an issue in science since then.

One may, for whatever reason, consider the science of biology to
be fundamentally wrong headed in this; or consider the application
of science to be fundamentally flawed in placing such confidence
in assertions about the past. I recognize this as a point of
disagreement; and am content for it to remain unresolved in this
forum.

A book which is teaching science as science, assuming standard
scientific methodology and terminology, is quite correct to refer
to evolution as a fact.  Such a claim is not a misrepresention of
science, and it accurately depicts the current consensus. If there
is any error, the error is deep within science itself.

> His offer of proof to the doubting Thomases is in the form of the micro
> evolution of finch beaks (pg 128). Furthermore on pg 129 he argues that
> even among scientist (non biologists) many fail to comprehend how
> evolution works & cites antibiotic resistance. He fails to state that
> there is a diff between proof of micro evolution (as mentioned above) and
> macro evolution which is an extrapolation of micro evolution. So he
> argues from the observable & testable and extrapolates that by implication
> as the proof  of macro evolution.
>
> My point remains, micro evolution is accepted & observable by both camps.
> Micro evolution is not proof for, or proof of macro evolution.

>From the perspective of science, this is backwards. Macroevolution,
if the term is used at all, refers to substantial changes in entire
populations, at the level of species or above. Macroevolution is thus
the fundamental fact, recognized well before the time of Darwin.
The problem for science in the nineteenth century was to identify
the processes and mechanisms by which change occurs. This is where
Darwin deserves credit for the first steps towards a viable theory.
Microevolution is basically the theory -- the study of processes
by which change arises and accumulates in populations.

The famous changes in finches are an example of macroevolutionary
change. Does Gribbon actually call it microevolution?!? The changes
are certainly not limited to beaks. In fact, when Darwin originally
collected his samples he did not even realise they were all finches!
That discovery was due to Gould, who studied Darwin's collection on
his return to England. Wallace (2nd ed, p 406) has a good picture of
Darwin's finches.

Any text book which failed to present the facts of common ancestry
and long term change would not be an accurate introduction to the
science of biology.

>>That is ok by itself; you are not obligated to be an expert. There
>>certainly are bad text books around. But the phrasing you are using
>>suggests you might sucked in to an ill-founded critique.
>
> Regrdless...my point is still confirmed & valid regarding misinformation.
> Your own words were "there certainly are bad text books around."

Yes. But my point also is that the problems you are identifying
are not problems, and that the books you present are actually
quite reasonable.

To put it anther way; your real objection is not to the books.
It is to the scientific principles which they accurately present.

>>So I repeat -- please give me an example of a text book which
>>is so misleading.
>
> The depiction of the fossil horse series as proof of evolution.
> See Biology: 5th Edition, C.A Villee;  Biology: The World of Life, R.A
> Wallace.

I have obtained these books:
"Biology" by Claude A. Villee (sixth edition, 1972, ISBN 0-7216-9022-x)
"Biology: The World of Life" by Robert A. Wallace (second edition, 1978,
ISBN 0-87620-109-5)

I could find no reference to the fossil record of horses in Villee,
and a very brief mention in Wallace. Neither book appears to present
a fossil series. I have heard stories of a museum somewhere which once
arranged horse fossils in a simple series, but later rearranged them to
better fit the diverging evolutionary relationships. Any modern book
which simply presented horse fossils in a linear sequence would indeed
be defective. I am not personally aware of any such books, and I see
no problems in this regard with Villee or Wallace.

We do have an exceptionally good fossil record for horses, which does
stand out as a good proof of evolution; and there would be no problem
in presenting it as such.

> The use of the Miller-Urey experiment as an explanation/example of how the
> origins of life may have occurred. Biology: The World of Life, R.A
> Wallace, Pg 23-4.

This is a misrepresention of Wallace. The Miller-Urey experiment is
enormously significant, and should be presented in any account of
research into the origins of life. This experiment demonstrated only
that the formation of organic molecules and amino acids by natural
means is quite easy. However, (quoting Wallace 2nd ed, p23)
"It is apparent however, that the problem of the origin of life
is not solved, not even theoretically. It is a long step from
acknowledging the exitence of organic molecules to accounting
for even the simplest forms of life."

Wallace goes on to discuss various ideas, all of which are clearly
presented as speculative. In Wallace's own words: "pure conjecture".
(Wallace 2nd ed, p 32).

The state of research into origins of life has advanced enormously
since 1978, but that is another matter entirely, which we need not
pursue.

> The morphological evidence of approx 100 vestigial organs
> See Biology: 5th Edition, C.A Villee, Pg 611

In the sixth edition, page 757. Quite so. No problem here. There are,
of course, some questions on whether or not some of the organs still
have a residual use; but that is entirely beside the point.  This
remains a powerful line of evidence, accurately presented by Villee.

> Also still limited uses of the recapitulation theory in arguments from
> embryology... "some parts of evolutionary history are recapitulated."
> Senior Biology: King & Sullivan, pg157

I was not able to find this book at all. However, Villee mentions
recapitulation on page 758, and uses a similar phrase:
"In recapitulating its evolutionary history in a few days,
weeks or months the embryo eliminates some steps and alters
or distorts others."

The notoriaty of recapitulation is due to its association with
Haeckel's discreddited notion that "Ontogeny recapitulates
phylogeny", and his notorious inaccurate drawings of embryos.
Haeckel's particular ideas were rejected early this century;
but this does not remove the basic observations of similarity in
vertebrate embryos. The word "recapitulation" is inaccurate and I
think Villee would be better not to use it, except for historical
reference to a long disproven hypothesis of Haeckel.

Villee does make quite clear that Haeckel's ideas were incorrect.

I dislike this section of Villee's book, and in particular the
sentence I have quoted. If I were a reviewer, I'd query it.

However, I do not think we could quote anything from this
section which is false or inaccurate in its context. Villee is
showing what actually goes on, as a contrast with what Haeckel
thought.

> As you have gone great lengths to point out, I am not an expert.
> However, each of these examples show how ambiguous data is often
> presented as fact or proof, which it is clearly not.

They are facts, and they are evidence, and they are presented as
such. It is a fact that we have an excellent record for the ancestry
of horses. It is a fact that comparative embryology reveals patterns
of similarity that serve as evidence for evolution. It is a fact that
vestigal organs exist, and serve as evidence for evolution.

The books seem fine to me. I accept that you may criticise them as
being inconsistent with the truth of the bible as you understand it;
but they are not defective in presentation of the science of biology,
or their descriptions of what is known and accepted as fact in science.

My one complaint with Villee is that I think he would be better not
to use the word "recapitulation" for the similarities of embryos of
related species. Wallace (p 175) presents exactly the same basic
information in terms which I feel are more accurate. The matter is
simply one of terminology for the sake of avoiding confusion with
Haeckel's ideas, which were incorrect, as is universally acknowledged.

>>> Just as you are disgusted with Gish, I am likewise sure you
>>> are concerned (if not disgusted) with the behaviour & ethics of
>>> men like Prof  Plimer who has misrepresented several people
>>> (creationists in particular) & their work in the past. Or the
>>> Aus Sceptics who have also been known to play loose with the
>>> truth in their desire to get their man. Not to mention our
>>> own resident Ken who (like the group he is involved with) has
>>> often made less than accurate statements concerning creationist
>>> organisations.
>>
>>I give you 1 out of 3 for this post Darren. I am very concerned indeed
>>with Plimer and his misrepresentations. I am not a great fan of the
>>Skeptics, either, frankly. I have expressed this opinion here and
>>elsewhere.
>>
>>> My point should be obvious, indignation, if it must be expressed
>>> should at least be consistent...
>>> or is there a natural selection advantage in being anti Creationist ;-)
>
> It was a general observation Chris. It was also served with a modicum of
> humour in case you hadn't noticed the smiley on the last line. My reply
> was meant to highlight that people on both camps are sometimes less
> than professional & honest.

Sure. And I believe I am consistent in my reactions.

> Furthermore, since you were the one who chose to drag Gish into
> the thread (although he had nothing to do with it) I felt it was
> an appropriate reminder that this can & does occur in both camps.

No problem.

> Perhaps I should not have actually used Plimer, but he was just an
> opportune example of an evolutionist who has behaved in less than
> appropriate ways, whilst many (Aus Sceptics for example) have either
> said nothing or actually defended him.
> Whether you have privately or publicly (I have not seen this
> arc - but I take your word for it) was not really the point of my post.

I'll take that as meaning that your comment that criticisms
"should at least be consistent" was intended in general terms
rather than being a direct reference to individuals here (and me
in particular). In that case I am happy to endorse the sentiment.

I am out of town for two weeks after this, but will be happy to
answer questions on my return.

Regards -- Chris