NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/origins/16803

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-27 | 9.2 KB

From: [e-mail] (John Brawley)
Sender: [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!cheswicks!fredgate
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Ideology and Indoctrination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 08:05:31 -0600
Lines: 182

On (25 Jan 93) Phillip Johnson wrote to All...

 A > From: [e-mail] (Phillip Johnson)
 A > Organization: University of California, Berkeley
 A >
 A > Chris Colby complains that Darwin on Trial reports that
 A > biologists have been hiding things from the public.   Why not,
 A > when leading figures have admitted as much on behalf of their
 A > profession?  It is not I but Stephen Jay Gould who described the
 A > prevalence of stasis and sudden appearance in the fossil record
 A > as the "trade secret" of paleontology.  Stephen Stanley has
 A > written that the doubts of paleontologists about the conformity
 A > of the fossil record with Darwinist gradualism were for long
 A > "suppressed."  Most revealing of all, Niles Eldredge confessed in
 A > print that "We paleontologists have said that the history of life
 A > supports [the story of gradual adaptive change], all the while
 A > really knowing that it does not."  That is a smoking gun indeed.

Greetings to you, Mr. Johnson.
I have read 'Darwin on Trial,' and have seen a videotape of one of your
lectures, and I must admit to both curiosity and confusion.  Here, for
example, as in the other two places I have seen you write, you seem to
object strongly to hidebound acceptance of "Darwinian" dogma, yet in no
place have I seen you object directly to "evolution" per se...  In this
writing here, the objection is to Darwinian gradualism; is this correct?
I mean, I see here mention of stasis and punctuation as a "secret" of
paleontologists, but I do not see that you make a point against the
supposed process of evolution in any _non_-Darwinian sense.  What am I
missing?  I tend to agree that scientists are as human as the rest of us,
and while science itself, in its method, may be "self-correcting" in the
ideal, scientists themselves can, along with us less structured reasoners,
fall prey to ideologies, but please clarify: I have tried to "pin down"
your overall position vis-a-vis "creation science" and _some_ form of
evolutionary process being the way in which 'we' got here to where we
are, and admit to failure.  What _is_ your attitude regarding "creation
science" ?  And what _is_ your attitude concerning the possibility that
_some_ form, 'punctuated' or otherwise, of long-term changing biological
'evolutionary' mechanism is responsible for producing human beings at the
'top' of the chain?

 A > beyond accountability.   As more of these instances of scientific
 A > arrogance come to light, the public becomes become more aware
 A > that scientists are as corruptible as members of other
 A > professions.  This is particularly the case when science
 A > becomes mixed with ideology, money and power.

Here, for example, you state what is to me an obvious truth; that ideology,
money and power can severely bend the reasoning powers of people, and that it
is
indefensible to deliberately (or through subservience to those terrible
forces)
mislead the public concerning science, but is this a general indictment of
science and scientists?  Or is it your main point in these writings?  I find
myself wanting to agree with much of what you write, but then, I have always
feared "generalities" used against established paradigms, even if the
paradigms
are themselves obviously incomplete descriptions of reality...  I have
recently
also becom leery of "warnings" -- good advice, of course, but "warnings"
nonetheless -- used against ideologies which have historically poor
susceptibility to erroneous claims: use of Baltimore et. al., or use of
Piltdown
man, or of brontosaurus heads being on the wrong bodies <g> ...to cast doubt
upon the entire rest of an ideology, seems too much like "guilt by
association"
for me to be comfortable with it.  Do you consider these types of "warnings"
to
be legitimate reasoning tools?  (This is an honest question; you do not strike

me as a fool.)

 A > the Freudians.  The problem is not so much that Darwinists tell
 A > deliberate untruths as that they believe their own propaganda,
 A > and interpret everything they see as confirming the ideology that
 A > controls their own thinking.

I am personally familiar with the astonishing capacity of the human mind to
completely twist incoming information to support a cherished view, in a deeper

sense than usual (details will _not_ be provided; the episode was quite
frightening). However, is it your position that _all_ evolutionary theorists
are
victim of this phenomenon, or just the gradualist Darwinists?  (Referring back

to my earlier question about your position on the subject.)

 A > An excellent example is the standard Darwinist delusion that the
 A > peppered moth example illustrates "evolution" in any non-trivial
(...deleted for brevity)
 A > shows fluctuations of populations rather than evolution, and even
 A > creationists have pointed this out." Indeed.

Is it then your position that the changes in allele frequencies in the
peppered
moth cannot legitimately be seen as time-limited examples of a process which
may
or may not occur, but which is far too slow (generally speaking) to experiment

with directly?  That is, are we to understand that the darkening of the moth's

protective coloration during sooty times, or the lightening of same during
times
of lighter tree bark, being probably a repeatable change in the frequency of
those alleles, cannot be used as an example of the same process extrapolated
to cases where there is no change _back_ to a former set of conditions?
(geographic or other environmental isolation)  I see that you use humor in
your
lectures.  That is commendable in many cases; a sense of humor seems to be
vital
in this emotion-charged area.  In debates I have seen, humor is also used, but

far too often in a derisive, rather than a constructive way.

 A > environmental circumstances.  This balanced selection increases
 A > the chances for survival of the species.  This is in many ways
 A > the most interesting feature of the evolution of the peppered
 A > moth, but it is often misrepresented in textbooks."  [P. 103]

I wish I could clearly grasp what it is that you are putting all this effort
into...  Here, again, it seems that you do not object so much to the concept
of
evolution so much as you object to its proselytization.  In other words, I
cannot yet pin down whether you accept evolution as occurring in _any_ form,
or do _not_ accept naturalistic evolution in any form.  Your underlying
position
is unclear to me.  I must of course agree that dogmatism (adherence to
ideological views) is reprehensible in the sciences, but I cannot determine
whether it is the science _itself_ you object to, or the popularization of it.

Can you help me?

 A > of an encyclopedia.  If you don't understand that explaining the
 A > origin of all that information presents a serious problem,
 A > it is probably because indoctrination in the notion
 A > that population fluctuation in the peppered moth is the paradigm
 A > example of evolution in action has a tendency to cloud the mind.

I remain confused: are you saying that a serious problem exists (in a
scientific sense, that would translate to: a serious challenge to be met,
or a definitely fascinating question to unravel), or are you saying that
_because_ a serious problem is presented, the theories of evolution are in
some way invalidated or illegitimate?

 A > I recognize that this frank talk will cause offense.  My purpose

I hope not.  Rational discussion should never cause offense.

 A > is not to insult anyone, however, but to free minds.  Many of you
 A > have been indoctrinated not to question assumptions that are
 A > based on ideology rather than evidence.  You can be free of that
 A > indoctrination if you wish to be.

What about those of us who were indoctrinated, broke their training, examined

the issues from non-indoctrinated perspectives, and still found decent reason
to
continue to accept the basic premises of science and it method?  I mean, what
does your position have to say to those of us, exposed heavily to dogmatic
"creation science" literature, people, and issues, who have come away from the

experiment in rejection of former indoctrination by "Darwinian" gradualist
ideology with yet a clarified and cleaned version of the same underlying
scientific interpretations of reality?  "Darwinism" may be an invalid position

to adopt, but do you thence advocate that _all_ forms of evolutionary thinking

be dropped?  Please help me clarify your position.  I have been trying to do
that since I read "Darwin on Trial," and have not been able to.  The first
chapters in that work were quite cogent and interesting, but the later ones
seemed to wander around a lot...  ...I could not quite figure out "where you
were going" with it.  Thanks.

Direct Email:
[e-mail]

FIDONet: John Brawley, 1:100/435
PO Box 224, Eureka, MO, 63025-1134
Data (BBMsgSys) [phone]

"Sit down before Fact like a little child...."
                        --T.H. Huxley