Skip to comments.creationism and creation science
Posted on 01/14/2002 9:50:16 AM PST by Junior
...the evolution of the cosmos is more than just "compatible" with theism. Faith in a God of self-giving love...anticipates an evolving universe.* John F. Haught
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973)
We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator. Duane Gish, Evolution? The Fossils Say No!
Creationism is a religious metaphysical theory which claims that a supernatural being created the universe. Creation Science is a pseudoscientific theory which claims that (a) the stories in Genesis are accurate accounts of the origin of the universe and life on Earth, and (b) Genesis is incompatible with the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution. Creation Science is an oxymoron since science is concerned only with naturalistic explanations of empirical phenomena and does not concern itself with supernatural explanations of metaphysical phenomena.
Creationism is not necessarily connected to any particular religion. Millions of Christians and non-Christians believe there is a Creator of the universe and that scientific theories such as the theory of evolution do not conflict with belief in a Creator. However, those Christians calling themselves creation scientists have co-opted the term creationism, making it difficult to refer to creationism without being understood as referring to Scientific Creationism. Thus, it is commonly assumed that creationists are Christians who believe that the account of the creation of the universe as presented in Genesis is literally true in its basic claims about Adam and Eve, the six days of creation, making day and night on the first day even though He didnt make the sun and moon until the fourth day, making whales and other animals that live in the water or have feathers and fly on the fifth day, and making cattle and things that creep on the earth on the sixth day, etc.
Creation scientists claim that Genesis is the word of God and thus infallibly true. They also claim that Genesis contradicts the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution. Thus, those theories are false and scientists who advocate such theories are ignorant of the truth about the origins of the universe and life on Earth. They also claim that creationism is a scientific theory and should be taught in our science curriculum as a competitor to the theory of evolution.
One of the main leaders of creation science is Duane T. Gish of the Institute for Creation Research, who puts forth his views mainly in the form of attacks on evolution. Gish is the author of Evolution, the Challenge of the Fossil Record (San Diego, Calif.: Creation-Life Publishers, 1985), Evolution, the Fossils Say No! (San Diego, Calif.: Creation-Life Publishers, 1978), and Evolution, the Fossils Still Say No! (Spring Arbor Distributors, 1985). Another leader of this movement is Walt Brown of the Center for Scientific Creationism. Despite the fact that 99.99% of the scientific community considers evolution of species from other species to be a fact, the creation scientists proclaim that evolution is not a fact but just a theory, and that it is false. The vast majority of scientists who disagree about evolution disagree as to how species evolved, not as to whether they evolved.
Scientific creationists are not impressed that they are in the minority. After all, they note, the entire scientific community has been wrong before. That is true. For example, at one time the geologists were all wrong about the origin of continents. They thought the earth was a solid object. Now they believe that the earth consists of plates. The theory of plate tectonics has replaced the old theory, which is now known to be false. However, when the entire scientific community has been proved to be wrong in the past it has been proved to be wrong by other scientists, not pseudoscientists. They have been proved wrong by others doing empirical investigation, not by others who begin with faith in a religious dogma and who see no need to do any empirical investigation to prove their theory. Erroneous scientific theories have been replaced by better theories, i.e., theories which explain more empirical phenomena and which increase our understanding of the natural world. Plate tectonics not only explained how continents can move, it also opened the door for a greater understanding of how mountain ranges form, how earthquakes are produced, how volcanoes are related to earthquakes, etc. Creationism is not a scientific alternative to natural selection or any other theory of evolution. The theory has not and is unlikely ever to lead to a serious understanding of biological phenomena in the natural world.
Darwin & Gish
Darwins theory of how evolution happened is called natural selection. That theory is quite distinct from the fact of evolution. Other scientists have different theories of evolution, but only a negligible few deny the fact of evolution. In the Origin of Species Darwin provided vast amounts of data about the natural world that he and others had collected or observed. Only after providing the data did he demonstrate how his theory accounted for the data much better than the theory of special creation. Gish, on the other hand, assumes that whatever data there is must be explained by special creation, because, he thinks, God said so in the Bible. Furthermore, Gish claims that it is impossible for us to understand special creation, since the Creator used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. Thus, Gish, rather than gather data and demonstrate how special creation explains the data better than natural selection, must take another approach, the approach of apologetics. His approach, and that of all the other creation scientists, is to attack at every opportunity what they take to be the theory of evolution. Rather than show the strengths of their own theory, they rely on trying to find and expose weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Gish and the other creation scientists actually have no interest in scientific facts or theories. Their interest is in defending the faith against what they see as attacks on Gods Word.
For example, creation scientists, mistaking the uncertain in science for the unscientific, see the debate among evolutionists regarding how best to explain evolution as a sign of weakness. Scientists, on the other hand, see uncertainty as an inevitable element of scientific knowledge. They regard debates on fundamental theoretical issues as healthy and stimulating. Science, says evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, is most fun when it plays with interesting ideas, examines their implications, and recognizes that old information may be explained in surprisingly new ways. Thus, through all the debate over evolutionary mechanisms biologists have not been led to doubt that evolution has occurred. We are debating how it happened, says Gould (1983, 256).
"creation science" and pseudoscience
Creation science is not science but pseudoscience. It is religious dogma masquerading as scientific theory. Creation science is put forth as being absolutely certain and unchangeable. It assumes that the world must conform to its understanding of the Bible. Where creation science differs from creationism in general is in its notion that once it has interpreted the Bible to mean something, no evidence can be allowed to change that interpretation. Instead, the evidence must be refuted.
Compare this attitude to that of the leading European creationists of the 17th century who had to admit eventually that the Earth is not the center of the universe and that the sun does not revolve around our planet. They did not have to admit that the Bible was wrong, but they did have to admit that human interpretations of the Bible were in error. Todays creationists seem incapable of admitting that their interpretation of the Bible could be wrong.
Creation scientists are not scientists because they assume that their interpretation of the Bible cannot be in error. They put forth their views as irrefutable. Hence, when the evidence contradicts their reading of the Bible, they assume that the evidence is false. The only scientific investigation they do is aimed at proving some evolutionary claim is false. Creation scientists see no need to test their theory, since God has revealed it. Infallible certainty is not the hallmark of science. Scientific theories are fallible. Claims of infallibility and the demand for absolute certainty characterize not science but pseudoscience.
What is most revealing about the creation scientists lack of any true scientific interest is the way they willingly and uncritically accept even the most preposterous of claims, if those claims seem to contradict traditional scientific beliefs about evolution. For example, any evidence that seems to support the notion that dinosaurs and humans lived together is welcomed by the creationists. And the way creation scientists treat the second law of thermodynamics indicates either gross scientific incompetence or deliberate dishonesty. They claim that evolution of life forms violates the second law of thermodynamics, which specifies that, on the macroscopic scale of many-body processes, the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease (Stenger).
Consider simply a black bucket of water initially at the same temperature as the air around it. If the bucket is placed in bright sunlight, it will absorb heat from the sun, as black things do. Now the water becomes warmer than the air around it, and the available energy has increased. Has entropy decreased? Has energy that was previously unavailable become available, in a closed system? No, this example is only an apparent violation of the second law. Because sunlight was admitted, the local system was not closed; the energy of sunlight was supplied from outside the local system. If we consider the larger system, including the sun, entropy has increased as required (Klyce).
Creation scientists treat the evolution of species as if it were like the bucket of water in the example above, which, they incorrectly claim, occurs in a closed system. If we consider the entire system of nature, there is no evidence that the second law of thermodynamics is violated by evolution.
Finally, although Karl Poppers notion that falsifiability distinguishes scientific from metaphysical theories has been much attacked by philosophers of science (Kitcher), it seems undeniable that there is something profoundly different about such theories as creationism and natural selection. It also seems undeniable that one profound difference is that the metaphysical theory is consistent with every conceivable empirical state of affairs, while the scientific one is not. I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, writes Gould, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science (Gould, 1983).
Creationism cant be refuted, even in principle, because everything is consistent with it, even apparent contradictions and contraries. Scientific theories allow definite predictions to be made from them; they can, in principle, be refuted. Theories such as the Big Bang theory, the steady state theory, and natural selection can be tested by experience and observation. Metaphysical theories such as creationism are airtight if they are self-consistent, i.e., contain no self-contradictory elements. No scientific theory is ever airtight.
What makes scientific creationism a pseudoscience is that it attempts to pass itself off as science even though it shares none of the essential characteristics of scientific theorizing. Creation science will remain forever unchanged as a theory. It will engender no debate among scientists about fundamental mechanisms of the universe. It generates no empirical predictions that can be used to test the theory. It is taken to be irrefutable. And it assumes a priori that there can be no evidence that will ever falsify it.
creationism as a scientific theory
Religious creationism could be scientific, however. For example, if a theory says that the world was created in 4004 B.C. but the evidence indicates that Earth is several billions of years old, then the theory is a scientific one if it is thereby taken to be refuted by the evidence. But if, for example, the ad hoc hypothesis is made that God created the world in 4004 B.C. complete with fossils that make the Earth look much older than it really is (to test our faith, perhaps, or to fulfill some mysterious divine plan), then the religious theory is metaphysical. Nothing could refute it; it is airtight. Philip Henry Gosse made this claim in Darwins time in a work entitled Creation (Omphalos): An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot, published in 1857.
If the age or scientific dating techniques of fossil evidence is disputed, but considered relevant to the truth of the religious theory and is prejudged to be consistent with the theory, then the theory is a metaphysical one. A scientific theory cannot prejudge what its investigative outcomes must be. If the religious cosmologist denies that the earth is billions of years old on the grounds that their own scientific tests prove the Earth is very young, then the burden of proof is on the religious cosmologist to demonstrate that the standard scientific methods and techniques of dating fossils, etc., are erroneous. Otherwise, no reasonable person should consider such an unsupported claim that would require us to believe that the entire scientific community is in error. Gish has tried this. The fact that he is unable to convert even a small segment of the scientific community to his way of thinking is a strong indication that his arguments have little merit. This is not because the majority must be right. The entire scientific community could be deluded. However, since the opposition issues from a religious dogmatist who is not doing scientific investigation but theological apologetics, it seems more probable that it is the creation scientists who are deluded rather than the evolutionary scientists.
There are many believers in a religious cosmology such as that given in Genesis who do not claim that their beliefs are scientific. They do not believe that the Bible is to be taken as a science text. To them, the Bible contains teachings pertinent to their spiritual lives. It expresses spiritual ideas about the nature of God and the relationship of God to humans and the rest of the universe. Such people do not believe the Bible should be taken literally when the issue is a matter for scientific discovery. The Bible, they say, should be read for its spiritual messages, not it lessons in biology, physics or chemistry. This used to be the common view of religious scholars. Allegorical interpretations of the Bible go back at least as far as Philo Judaeus (b. 25 BCE). Philosophical analyses of the absurdity of popular conceptions of the gods were made by philosophers such as Epicurus (342-270). Creation scientists have no taste for allegorical interpretations.
creationism and politics
Advocates of creation science have campaigned to have their Biblical version of creation taught as science in U.S. public schools. One of their successes was in the state of Arkansas, which passed a law requiring the teaching of creationism in public schools. This accomplishment may seem significant but it must be remembered that until 1968 it was illegal to teach evolution in Arkansas! In 1981, however, the law was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge who declared creationism to be religious in nature (McLean v. Arkansas). A similar Louisiana law was overturned by the United States Supreme Court in 1987 (Edwards v. Aguillard). In 1994, the Tangipahoa Parish school district passed a law, under the guise of promoting critical thinking, requiring teachers to read aloud a disclaimer before they taught evolution. This dishonest ruse was thrown out by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in 1999. Another tactic was tried by creationist biology teacher John Peloza in 1994. He sued his school district for forcing him to teach the religion of evolutionism. He lost and the the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there is no such religion. In 1990 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that school districts may forbid the teaching of creationism since it is a form of religious advocacy (Webster v. New Lenox School District). Many religious leaders support this ruling. They recognize that allowing school districts to teach creationism is to favor one groups religious views over the religious views of others and has nothing to do with critical thinking or fairness in the science curriculum.
Creation scientists may have failed in their attempts to have evolution banned from the classroom and to have creationism taught alongside evolution. However, politically active creationists have not given up; they have just changed tactics. Creationists have been encouraged to run for local school boards to try to gain control of the teaching of evolution that way. School boards can determine what texts the schools may and may not use. Creationists who complain to school boards about the teaching of evolution are more likely to be successful in their efforts at censoring science texts if the school board has several creationists.
In Alabama, biology textbooks carry a warning that says that evolution is a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. . . .No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about lifes origins should be considered as theory, not fact. In Alabama, it seems, if you wake up to snow on the ground, but no one saw it snowing, then you may only propose a theory as to the origin of the snow.
In August of 1999 the Kansas State Board of Education rejected evolution and the Big Bang theory as scientific principles. The 10-member board voted six to four to eliminate these topics from the science curricula. The Kansas Board did not ban the teaching of evolution or of the Big Bang Theory. The Board simply deleted any mention of evolution and the Big Bang theory from the science curriculum and from the materials used to test graduating students. Creationists, such as Board Member Steve Abrams, a former head of the state Republican Party, hailed the decision as a victory in the war against evolutionists. A new Board restored the scientific theories to their previous place in February 2001. Creationists want children to believe that God made them and every other species individually for a purpose. They do not want children to think that a divine power might be behind the Big Bang or evolution of species.
At the same time that militant creationists are trying to censor textbooks that treat evolution properly, they complain of censorship against creationist works.* This tactic of fighting fire with fire has led creationist Jerry Bergman to argue that evolution (unlike Genesis?) teaches that women are inferior to men. The goal of militant creationists is to debunk evolution wherever possible, not to forward scientific knowledge. (See Revolution Against Evolution.) One of their favorite tactics is to blame all sin and crime on lack of proper Bible study and the teaching of godless theories such as evolution and the Big Bang theory. Marc Looy of the group Answers in Genesis says that the 1999 Kansas vote was important because
students in public schools are being taught that evolution is a fact, that they're just products of survival of the fittest. . . .It creates a sense of purposelessness and hopelessness, which I think leads to things like pain, murder, and suicide.
That there is no scientific evidence to support these claims is a matter of indifference to those who believe them. When science does not support their beliefs, they attack science as the handmaiden of Satan. I wonder what Mr. Looy has to say about Christian Identity (Buford Furrow Jr.) or Erich Rudolph or Operation Rescue (Randal Terry) and other Bible-loving groups that preach hatred and inspire violence and murder. What would he say about Matthew and Tyler Williams who, in the words of their mother, "took out two homos" because that's what God's law [Leviticus 20:13] demands? (Sacramento Bee, "Expert: Racists often use Bible to justify attacks," by Gary Delsohn and Sam Stanton, Sept. 23, 1999.*) These killers have certainly found a purposeful existence, but there is clearly no connection between purposefulness and the end of pain, murder, or suicide. Had more people been forced to read Biblical quotations on their schoolroom walls or in their textbooks, for all we know, there would be more, not less pain, murder, and violence.
The desperation of many creationists is evident from the fact that despite numerous corrections by evolutionists, they still try to get the public to identify evolution with Social Darwinism. This straw man tactic is common and is exemplified in the following letter to the Sacramento Bee. The letter was in response to an article on an expert who claims that racists often use the Bible to justify their hate.
It is Darwinian evolution, not holy Scripture, that justifies racism.... evolution teaches survival of the fittest, including (as Hitler recognized) survival of the fittest "branch" of the human family tree. Genuine evolution has no place for true equality. This same evolutionist thinking underlies the hatred that racist groups display toward homosexuals. They view homosexuals as defective and thus inferior. (-------10/3/99)
The view that Darwins theory of natural selection implies racism or inequality is a claim made by one either ignorant of Darwin's theory or by one who knows the truth and thinks a lie spread in the name of religion is a morally justified lie.
militant creationism evolves
Creation science has developed a new concept, useful not to science but to polemics: the concept of microevolution. They invented a distinction between macroevolution and microevolution to allow them to account for development and changes within species, without requiring them to accept the concept of natural selection.
Macroevolution is the direct attempt to explain the origin of life from molecules to man in purely naturalistic terms. In doing so, it is an affront to Christians because it deliberately tries to get rid of God as the creator of life. The idea that man is a result of millions of happy accidents that mutated their way from slime through the food chain to monkeys should be offensive to every thinking person (Sharp).*
What should be an affront to many Christians and non-Christian creationists is the insinuation that if one does not adhere to this Christians interpretation of the Bible, one is offending God. Many creationists believe that God is behind the beautiful unfolding of evolution (Haught).* There is no contradiction in believing that what appears to be a mechanical, purposeless process from the human perspective, can be teleological and divinely controlled. Natural selection does not require that one get rid of God as the creator of life any more than heliocentrism requires one to get rid of God as the creator of the heavens.
See related entries on God, metaphysics, pseudoscience and science.
Cramer, J.A., General Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, in Origins and Shape, D. L. Willis, ed., (American Scientific Affiliation, Elgin, IL, 1978).
Dawkins, Richard. River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995, BasicBooks).
Dawkins, Richard. Climbing Mount Improbable (1996 Viking Press).
Dobzhansky, Theodosius. Genetics and the Origin of Species (Columbia University Press, 1982).
Edey, Maitland A. and Donald C. Johanson. Blueprints : Solving the Mystery of Evolution (Penguin, 1990).
Ferris, Timothy. The Whole Shebang : A State-Of-The-Universe's Report (Touchstone, 1998).
Gardner, Martin, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1957), ch. 11.
Gould, Stephen Jay, "Darwin and Paley Meet the Invisible Hand," in Eight Little Piggies (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1993).
Gould, Stephen Jay, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," in Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes (New York: W.W. Norton & Company,1983).
Gould, Stephen Jay, Ever Since Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1979).
Haught, John F. God After Darwin : A Theology of Evolution (Westview Press, 1999).
Haught, John F. Science and Religion : From Conflict to Conversation (Paulist Press, 1996).
Kitcher, Phillip. Abusing Science: the Case Against Creationism (MIT Press, 1983).
Pennock, Robert T. Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism (M.I.T. Press, 1999).
Pilmer, Ian. Telling Lies for God: Reason vs. Creationism (Random House, New South Wales, Australia: 1994).
Schadewald, Robert. "Creationist Pseudoscience," in Science Confronts the Paranormal, edited by Kendrick Frazier. (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books,1986).
Shermer, Michael. Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time, chs. 9-11, (W H Freeman & Co.: 1997).
Yes, in highly favorable conditions, soft parts can be fossilized. As mentioned above, there are fossils of unicelluars. Occasionally with vertebrates we can see skin folds, organs, feathers, and other things that far more usually leave no trace. In fact, most animals that die leave no fossils at all. The very well preserved ones are rare, exceptional cases. So what?
You obviously have little idea of what the term "theory" means in science. It has little relation to the term as it is used in every day speech. In science a theory is as close to an absolute as one is likely to get; it is a system supported by observation and experimentation upon which scientists can rely to make predictions. For this reason, Relativity is "only a theory" even though its basic tenets have been confirmed through observation and experimentation. The closest scientific term to the layman's "theory" is "hypothesis." Evolution is a theory and not a hypothesis.
Despite Morton's patient explanation, you miss the point that a lobopod is not an arthropod leg at all. The animal it appears on predates all that. And what about Anomalocaris, that wormy critter with arthropod parts?
How does looking up a modern velvet worm and going "Tah-dah" answer all this? Oh, wait! You did say something else:
2.(the other point that was disputable) He claimed the apparent big explosion of life in the Cambrian was misleading in that it just indicated this is when all the disparate forms all evolved shells, and their shell-less precursers did not leave fossils. There are two quick points on this. Firstly a LOT of different forms suddenly appeared. To surmise that they all evolved shells in parallel strains credulity but its certainly not an adequate refutal of the claim. The more convincing refutation, to me, occurs farther back on his own page and is the first image posted on this reply: It is a fossil from an earlier age that is soft.
I touched on this already. Yes, there are some "soft" fossils from before the Cambrian explosion, but they're harder to find. This is not suprising and does not help your case. It's far easier to fossilize chitin or bone than soft cellular tissue. It's unclear how many times hard parts were developed. I doubt if you need more than three: one each for mollusks, arthropods, and (rather later) vertebrates.
You've been given all sorts of evidence for the mechanisms involved and evidence that what obviously happens has happened.
What's your story?
I entirely disagree and have to wonder if you are honestly trying to understand me correctly. Your argument is the same as people citing the discovery of the modern coelacanth--a "primitive" lobe-finned fish--as discrediting fossil lobe-fins (Eusthenopteron et. al.) as transitionals toward amphibians. Or, you might as well ask, "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Or, you could cite the continued existance of those cyanobacteria, or primitive Amphioxus-type vertebrates. You cannot possibly be familiar with the models of speciation you claim to distrust and make this kind of argument. Period.
Instead it is a lovely example of the persistence of a distinct form for half a billion years-one that clearly was under no environmental pressures that would have given some changed population within its ranks higher survivability.
Your velvet worm is not the same species as Aysheaia. I'm unclear on the exact relationship.
Further I will happily agree with your contention that the article was incorrect in its hypothesis explaining the sudden appearance of many diverse forms in the Cretaceous not proceeded by a fossil record, something I quite frankly was not aware of until you sent me the link.
I'm unaware of being in serious disagreement with Morton. What I'm mostly disagreeing with are your characterizations of my posts.
I am very much trying to understand you. Are you trying to misunderstand me? I asked for a demonstration of transition, you provide a link to a page which does not do that. I do not claim to win a point against transition by this, only that a point for it cannot be based on the information on that page, as the fossils represented there did not show change, only proposed it. There was no earlier form there, although it was discussed. Likewise the later form shown seemed hypothetical as it was an illustration and did not seem to be an identified actual species.
I am not adverse to proof of anything. My initial question which started our discussion still has not been addressed. Where is the record of the evolution of kidneys, gills, and wings.
I am still working my way through your latest offerings, and it is a wonderful thing how different segments in arthropods can have their genes activated or surpressed by UBX to determine its function as a thoracic or abdominal unit. But (I have not finished the site yet) even that site's transitional evidence seems to be a drawing morphing our first lobopod fossil with a fruitfly. I don't see the evidence of how we got from that soft skinned simple thing to an exoskeletal, sophisticated, compound eyed, flying creature. Stating "this scale here next to the leg eventually became a wing" just is not evidence of evolution, particularly Darwin's Natural Selection., it is merely conjecture, an hypothesis.
If I have a case, its that the theory seems to be proof of itself, its true and the evidence shows it, because of the truth of the theory. Well it may well be true, but I wish someone would show me where I can find answers to the questions I asked when I first posted to the thread.
Vade, I do not want to upset you, but your standard of proof is different than mine, you're seeing things as conclusive that I am not. I am not saying you are wrong, just that I am missing your point.
Thank you for your time.
That page is about how several major phyla of the famous Cambrian Explosion arose. Every one of the many species cited on that page show features in some way intermediate between phyla and suggest the evolutionary origin of same.
What are you looking for, movie frames? Try here, Smooth Change in the Fossil Record.
If I have a case, its that the theory seems to be proof of itself, its true and the evidence shows it, because of the truth of the theory. Well it may well be true, but I wish someone would show me where I can find answers to the questions I asked when I first posted to the thread.
Theories in the physical sciences are never proven the way it happens in geometry. The best you can have is a preponderance of evidence. This is the case for evolution. It has a massive enough preponderance of evidence that the only questions concern precise mechanisms. See Evolution is a Fact and a Theory.
Just noticed what I believe is your source for this. From the main article of this thread:
I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, writes Gould, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science (Gould, 1983).
Are you aware of the difference between what Gould says and what you say he says? Gould is saying every evolutionary theory he knows of can potentially be falsified--say, by finding a radio in Cretaceous sediments. You're saying Gould is already aware of and admitting falsifying data for every case.
I didn't pay too much attention to this on the first pass because Gould has given the Luddites a fair amount of quote material, hyping his Punk-Eek by running down "Neo-Darwinism" (gradualistic scenarios). Thus I'm used to seeing his quotes taken out of context and distorted to make it appear he's not a Darwinist at all. However, on closer examination, you've taken a unique license here.
But I think he said what I said, and meant what I think he meant, he just said it better.
He is saying (to me) that there are holes in the theory (gaps in the record), and while he believes in the theory, owing to (as you and he see) "a preponderance of the evidence", he is at least willing to imagine observations or experiments that rely on those holes to potentially disprove the theory. I firmly do not believe he in any way meant to suggest that those observations or experiments would be falsified. If I get it right, his very Punk Eek theory uses those very holes as a sort of dis-evidence of the potential validity of his thesis.
(Didn't von Daniken find a radio in the Cretaceous? Or was it a Battery in Babylon?)
Not here he isn't.
He's simply talking about which theory has real information content and is subject to disproof by evidence that contradicts what the theory says. The actual information content of "Well, God could have done it that way" is very low. The statement works equally well against any conceivable "that way." It isn't testable, falsifiable, or scientific. That's what Gould is talking about.
I think he is saying exactly what he is saying, why make his words jump through hoops?
Let facts be submitted to a candid world!
The Gould quote:
I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, writes Gould, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science (Gould, 1983).The ventana paraphrase (1):
Again, not even Gould is willing to accept evolution "sola scriptura" as immutable truth instead of theory--he says he can construct experiments to disprove any evolutionary theory he knows!(Bah!)
The ventana paraphrase (2):
He is saying (to me) that there are holes in the theory (gaps in the record), and while he believes in the theory, owing to (as you and he see) "a preponderance of the evidence", he is at least willing to imagine observations or experiments that rely on those holes to potentially disprove the theory.Are you allowed your own definition of "is?"
The VadeRetro paraphrase:
He's simply talking about which theory has real information content and is subject to disproof by evidence that contradicts what the theory says. The actual information content of "Well, God could have done it that way" is very low. The statement works equally well against any conceivable "that way." It isn't testable, falsifiable, or scientific. That's what Gould is talking about.Why is this right? Let's go back to the original.
I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, writes Gould . . ."Can envision" does not mean "am already aware of." Gould is not aware of data that actually falsifies evolution or he would not be the evolutionary theorist he is.
. . . but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science (Gould, 1983).This addendum looks rather odd in light of your interpretation of the first part. The only sense you could make of it is he's rather enviously sniping at creationism for not having been falsified already as you say he thinks evolution has. (Creationism being totally immune to falsification).
It makes perfect sense my way. He said in the first part that evolution tells you enough about the real world that real-world observations could falsify it. Now it's time to compare and contrast. Creationism does not and can never tell you anything about what to expect in the future. God might have left it any way you could ever possibly find it.
I submit that it is you, sir, who is trying to redefine "is"
And now, if we are both comfortable with our own closing statements, I suggest we call a truce.