[From Bill Powers (970817.0847 MDT)]
Ken Kitzke (970817.0730 EDT) --
I wonder if you really want to get into this argument about evolution. In
my experience, the reason most people deny evolution as a fact is some
religious belief about creation. Are you prepared to subject your beliefs
to scientific scrutiny? I don't think there are many people here who would
want to destroy anyone's religious beliefs just to win an argument -- I
know I don't. So if you want to start a discussion on those grounds, you
probably will be met with silence. At least that would be my
recommendation. I will offer a few general comments, and let it go.
There are two aspects of evolution, as Rick Marken has pointed out before.
There is the _observation_ of an apparent progression of life-forms which,
according to our best ways of dating past events, extend over many hundreds
of millions of years. This does not fall into the realms of theory; it is
simply a collection of facts that needs explaining. And then there are
_theories_ of evolution, which attempt to explain why there is such a
succession of forms. Natural selection is one of those theories; I have
offered another based on intentional control by the organisms of basic
variables essential to accurate reproduction of forms. Other theories have
been offered, including the theory that God placed these fossil (and other)
records where we found them as a test of our faith. Arguments can be
offered in favor of each of these theories, and against each of them.
When a scientist (an ideal scientist, that is) explores a theory, he or she
is prepared to accept the outcome whichever way it goes. But when science
comes up against faith this is no longer true on both sides, because faith
does not admit of any outcome except the one that has been decided upon
from the start. When defending a faith, one looks only for evidence that
supports it. When exploring a scientific theory one may offer tentative
explanations, but then one looks at all the evidence, giving perhaps more
weight to evidence against the theory than evidence that appears to support
it.
The more explicit and exact the claims of a scientific theory, the less
contrary evidence is required to upset it. But with faith, it is just the
opposite; mountains of contrary evidence can be offset by a single bit of
apparently supportive evidence, or by none at all. The reason is simply
that in science, there are rules of reasoning that operate -- again,
ideally -- independently of what the scientist wishes, hopes, or believes
to be true. But in faith, the only rule is that the faith shall be
maintained: what one _wants_ to be true is made true.
What this means is that those arguing from the scientific side are working
under different rules from those arguing from faith. In a way, the
scientist works under a handicap, because the scientist must always keep in
mind that his position may prove to be false, while the person arguing from
faith never considers this possibility, and indeed can't consider it
without immediately losing the argument. If a Biblical fundamentalist ever
seriously considered the possibility that what is in the Bible may not
actually be the word of God, the battle would be lost, because the only
evidence that it _is_ the word of God is what is written in it.
I have no objection to teaching Creation Science in science courses. The
only stricture I would place on such teaching is that it teach the
principles of science first, and of specific theories only secondarily. I
would like to see young people learning how to ask question of nature in a
way that is as free from bias as possible. I would like to see them
learning how to test their ideas through observation and experiment,
learning how to explore both the evidence for and the evidence against any
idea. I would like to know they are learning how to avoid logical errors
and to detect specious arguments however well they are disguised. I would
like them to learn how much more joyful it is to discover the truth about
something than to prove that they were right all along.
If young people were taught about science this way, I would have no qualms
about letting them consider Darwinian theory, Lamarkianism, or creation
theories whether Christian, Navajo, or Hindu. I would be happy to let them
consider PCT along with behaviorism, cognitive science, personality theory,
or Freudian theory, without any hints as to which one I wish they would
accept.
Scientific thinking is an attitude toward knowledge, not any specific
knowledge. It's the best aproach so far invented for finding out how nature
really is, as opposed to how we hope or fear it is.
Best,
Bill P.
