🚀 go-pugleaf

Re: Gish-Patterson debate (March 8, Iowa State University)


The following is posted on behalf of Tim Borseth <SOriginsR@aol.com> an
advisor for Students for Origins Research:

-------

Mark O'Leary wrote:

Subject: Re: Gish-Patterson debate (March 8, Iowa State University)
From: skeptix@efn.org (Mark O'Leary)
Date: 1999/06/01
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic


TB w/ SOR:  Greetings to you Mark.  I haven't had the pleasure of
meeting
you, but it seems that you felt it a worthy investment of your time to
share
your two cents concerning an evolution/creation debate we sponsored at
Iowa
State Univ. this past spring.
Noticing some comments that I felt were misleading, I thought I would
respond
to them.

You wrote:
I guess the debate organizers had a job tracking down a *biologist* to
speak about evolution.

TB:  We did approach one biology professor who declined the invitation.
It
was  quite easy getting Dr. Patterson to debate on this topic, though.
He's
been very vocal and active in the origins debate and even was lamenting
that
he didn't have more opportunities to do so.
What was difficult was finding a creationist to speak on this topic.
Not
that they were not willing or qualified, but their schedules were full
with
teaching/ research activities (for professors) or had other speaking
engagements.

You wrote:
I would suggest that the assumptions on which science are based are
necessarily naturalistic - because if you didnt assume that things were
replicatable and had measurable causes, then there'd be no point in
trying to
analyse them at all. But, that doesnt mean that science *asserts* that
the
world in which it operates is
naturalistic:  it simply means that science only draws testably valid
conclusions when its naturalistic assumptions are true.  ....  But it is
worth saying that using science to examine a question doesn't mean
you've
already ruled out the supernatural as the answer to that question.

TB:  I agree completely.  Such a well reasoned and expressed definition
of
science bared repeating.

You wrote:
Needless to say, so far scientific endeavour has yet to find a
phenomenon
that generated the contradictory results that would be diagnostic of a
non-naturalistic power at work.  ....
Science as a tool would highlight quite nicely that something odd was
happening if one of the gods did meddle: it just wouldnt be able to
further
explain.

TB:  Now this is a curious comment.  I would contend that events have
occurred that have produced "contradictory results" to what the
established
scientific laws would predict.  These events would, of course, not be
regular
or predictable for if they were then they would be a "law" in and of
themselves.  Since they are random, unpredictable, and scientifically
unexplainable, they are labeled as anomalies or, better yet, miracles.
When such events occur, one must utilize other equally valid tests to
ascertain there accuracy.  Such tests would be eye witness testimony,
historical documentation, suggestive evidence (physical indications that
the
event occurred), corroboration, ect... ect...
Some events that pass these tests and yet contradict predictable
scientific
laws are:  spontaneous healings by Jesus of Nazareth (see The New
Testament
gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke &  John, The Antiquities by Josephus,
Annuls
by Tacticus, and the Talmud to name a few historical sources), unnatural
significant geographical darkness at the hour of Christ's crucifixion
(The
New Testament gospels, Julius Africanus's writings [quoting Thallus AD
52],
Tertullian's works, Phlegon the Greek from Caria), the overwhelming
number of
cross-cultural, dramatic, permanent life changes resulting from a
sincere
acceptance of the claims of Jesus Christ (The New Testament, Religion
Today
February 12, 1999, personal experience), and contemporary healings
exempting
spontaneous remissions (Healing Words by Larry Dossey M.D., Biblische
Glaubensgemeinde by Peter Wenz, ...)
Note:  These are just a few examples that I'm personally researching on
the
side right now.
To completely discount these and other examples of supernatural
occurrences,
I fear, only exposes an anti-supernatural bias and an intentional choice
of
ignorance in the face of the evidence.

You wrote:
...insofar as creationist argument as seen on this forum and elsewhere
has
demonstrated "flat incompetence" without question - and in fact
deliberate
distortion of the truth rather than honest ignorance - I find nothing to
argue with in this broad character sketch.

TB:  Ouch!  Are ad hominems a usual tactic on this newsgroup?  Maybe the
"creationists" you speak of are evolutionists trying to make us look
bad?  :-
)  I know of no mental incapacity inherent in creationists to warrant
such a
view.

Original article:
> Patterson said creationists rely on a fatalistic circular tautology.
....
> Gish argued that the theory of evolution is no more "testable" than the
> theory of creation because the creation of the world can never be
> repeated.....

You wrote:
How kind of Gish to provide such a clear demonstration of the circular
tautology in question!
Since he assumes that creation was a singular event sharply demarcated
in
time, and since he also assumes that humanity and the earth are unique
in
importance and creation will never be repeated, he claims lack of
testability for creation.

TB:  Unless you know something I don't, observable, testable evidence is
limited to this planet which is indeed already in existence.  When one
speaks
of origins, you refer to the arrival of the original, parent specimen in
question, not mutations of a pre-existant specimen.  Gish is speaking
about
ultimate origins and therefore is not making a circular argument but a
statement of obvious fact.  I believe the Ist Law of Thermodynamics begs
this
question.

You said:
Assume the answer you want, and that asusmption
makes finding out if its the *right* answer conveniently impossible.

TB:  In the Soil Biophysics lab, we often call this a hypothesis.  We
assume
an anaerobic environment will produce certain results, but testing will
either confirm or deny our assumption.  It never makes finding the right
answer impossible.

You wrote:  An evolutionist, who sees "creation" as the operation of a
slow
and
continuing process, can test his theory against the records of that
process in operation (fossils genomes, etc etc) and can show it
happening
now. She can also look elsewhere to new environments whre it might be
operating.

TB:  Indeed, an evolutionist would "see" this, but I would suggest that
a
scientist would observe otherwise.  An objective analysis, I submit,
demonstrates a deficiency of clear transitional forms and the lack of a
sufficient mechanism for favorable genetic mutations.  What one would
expect
from millions of years of evolution is not what one finds.  Rather than
reduce the significance of this finding or explain it away, a scientist
would
reconsider the accuracy of his hypothesis... at least this one would.

Original article:
> "It's not about theology or the age of the Earth," he said. "The basic
> issue is how the universe and living things come into existence."

You said:
It's a good job its not the age of the earth, because thats one battle
that already been lost... And creationism has very little to do with
academic
theology, either. It derives from a naively literal appreciation of the
Bible.

TB:  Having a degree in geology from Iowa State Univ. and a degree from
Moody
Bible Institute, I would take exception to both of these comments.
Radiometric dating continues to be problematic with it's inherent
assumptions
and its aggravating inconsistent results.  I think the losers are us for
putting so much weight on our interpretations of this technique.
A "naively literal" interpretation of Genesis just so happens to be the
most
scholarly and honest treatment of the original document.  Since Genesis
is a
historical narrative, the original author's intent would be literal
unless
context would dictate otherwise.  The context of Genesis one can only be
interpreted as literal and sequential.  Any Jewish scholar worth his
salt
would admit such, as well as other biblical scholars. (Exposition of
Genesis
by H.C. Leupold, Basic Theology by R.C. Ryrie, the Journal of the
American
Scientific Assoc. vol. 39, art. by Pattle P.T. Punn)

Original article:
> Patterson said "genuine explanations" must serve to do several things:
be more understandable and less bewildering; more predictable and less
> capricious; more controllable and less fatalistic; and more subject to
> natural laws. He further argued that by invoking God, miracles and the
> like, creationists invoke exactly the opposite results.

You wrote:
If anyone wanted to dispute this view, they'd have to demonstrate a
clear
distinction between the phrases "I don't know how it happened" and "God
did it".

TB:  I don't dispute Patterson's view of the nature of science at all.
But I
can offer a distinction between "I don't know how it happened" and "God
did
it".
If a phenomenon occurs that is truly unexplainable (and a lot of work
would
have to go into that before I would concede such), then I don't know how
it
happened.
Such would be my assignment in life UNLESS God communicates in an
understandable, verifiable fashion that he did it.  (In the Old and New
testament, God would do this via a prophetic message authenticated by
miraculous signs or fulfilled prophecies.)

Original article:
> Gish said biologists cannot explain from an evolutionary standpoint the
> genetic variability that would have led to a process such as the
> metamorphic changes of a butterfly from its chrysalis state.

You wrote:
 which was an outright lie on his part. Much of the basics of genetics
was worked out on species that go through a metamorphosis, such as
Xenopus, the African clawed toad. (Xenopus still features in undergrad
biologist
practicals)

TB:  Whoa, what an accusation.  Maybe you misunderstand Gish's
statement.
He's not saying that the genetics of metamorphosis is not understood,
he's
saying that what's not understood is the "genetic variability that would
have
led to a process" of metamorphosis.  Again, it's a difference between
the
objective scientific method in the here and now and explaining the
origins of
the process in question.  Gish's assertion is that evolution has a
serious
problem in clarifying how such a process would develop via gradualism.

Original article:
> He said there are gaps in fossil records, which fail to show a
> transition from fish to invertebrates. He said invertebrates "abruptly
> appear in the fossil record."

You said:
Gaps are expected from the mechanisms by which fossils occur - theya re
a
*rare* event. Even despite that, convincing transitions are seen.

TB:  Agreed, fossilization is a tremendously rare event, so much so that
I'm
shocked at the tremendous number of fossil remains that do exist.  I'm
not
sure what "convincing transitions" you speak of, but I guess it wasn't
enough
to convince the punctuated equilibrium believers among us.

Original article:
> In Gish's other main argument, he said the Second Law of Thermodynamics
> states that an isolated system can only become less ordered, less
> organized and less complex, and it can never go in the reverse
> direction.

You wrote:
I wonder if he's ever seen a snowflake?

TB:  Hey, were you at the debate?!  That's the same argument that Dr.
Patterson used.  No scientifically minded individual should ever use
such an
argument as an example of the reversal of the 2nd law.  As Gish
commented
that night, "the crystallization of water occurs spontaneously, fully in
accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, since the Gibbs free
energy
change is negative!"

Original article:
> Gish said he finds the evolutionists' inability to explain the origin of
> everything problematic.

You wrote:
OK, lets hear his alternative explanation. (remember, "God did it" is
indistinguishable from "I don't know how it happened" in content).

TB:  I answered it above.  There is a distinction.  If you can
demonstrable
prove that God did not communicate the origin of everything in Genesis,
then
we're both in a quandary.  I've found that the evidence for the accuracy
and
supernatural origin of the Bible convincing enough for me to reasonably
place
my faith in its origin account.  Other creation accounts lack the
substance
to pass the battery of test to confirm their reliability.

Original article:
> "Did the 'Cosmic Chicken' lay the egg?" he asked. Gish further quipped,
> "Hydrogen: A tasteless, odorless gas, which, given enough time, becomes
> human."

You wrote:
I actually love the hydrogen 'quip'. To the best of our knowledge, it is
more-or-less true....

TB:  Now that's faith.

It's been fun wrestling over these issues with you.

Tim Borseth
SOR advisor


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.