Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Warcraft3 · 05-28-2003, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lobstrosity
Same here. It's nice when you have a chance to make cogent points that do more than simply preach to the choir, you know? Sadly it seems that most of the creationists at TWeb either are scientifically illiterate or at the very least lack the esteem/drive to respond to scientifically-oriented questions. Right now it seems that only Socrates and Socratism bother taking up the creationist fight when confronted with logical arguments and/or scientific evidence. Most of the other creationists just appear to sit back in the wings and watch, which is kind of sad as the discussions with the Sox start to get a bit old after a while.

As a theist who does post on TWEB I feel like I should explain why I rarely post in the whole creation/evolution debate.

Since I am an electrical engineer (and currently only have a Bachelors degree) I have not received formal training in most topics realted to creation/evolution. So I am left with reading books or internet articles/debates and trying to sort everything out to come to a conclusion. I have read stuff by prettty much every side of the debate, and I think the OECs' and IDists do have some good stuff. I also think the evolutionists have some good stuff as well.

So instead of me just posting a link to some article or commenting on a debate between "experts" I just keep quiet unless I really feel I can make some kind of comment which will contribute to the thread. There are many people who do post and many of them are far more qualified than I am.

I will try to participate more in the future, although for me to do so will require alot of time consuming reading. Even then, I may not have anything earth shattering to say that everyone hasnt already heard before anyway.

Russ

MrDarwin · 05-29-2003, 06:57 AM

To provide some context to the Corner quotation, here is the paragraph in which the quotation appears along with the immediately preceding paragraph. I have bolded the two most commonly quoted sentences (note that creationists who quote more extensively leave out one particular sentence between them).

Quote:

The early advocates of evolution were taxonomists, and many were concerned with the very building of the great hierarchy of classification on which we still rely. It is so immense that the modern student takes it for granted, and it is this indifference which makes me suspect that the significance of evolution is underestimated. Classification has related species into genera, genera into tribes, tribes into families, and so on, and the implication is that these genera have evolved from an ancestral genus, the tribes from an ancestral tribe, and so on. It is commonly assumed that the evolution of species, producing novelties in structure and function, has been the same as that which produced the higher taxa, the characters of which are conserved and not mutated. Indeed, it is a fashion to waive aside the higher taxa as figments convenient for nomenclature. This is a misunderstanding because the characters of these taxa are as real as the specific characters; they make up the more fundamental construction, of which the specific are the embellishments. Equally with the specific, they must have a protoplasmic basis, but, whether this is nuclear or cytoplasmic, genetics has been unable to investigate, since the higher taxa do not hybridise.

Considering how many of these characters depend ultimately upon the cell wall in plants, and realising how little is known of the inheritance of the cell wall, except that it forms from the cytoplasm, I often think that the permanent characters of supra-specific taxa are maintained by cytoplasmic structure, modifiable no doubt by nuclear influences. We have, in fact, no evidence of how the potentialities of these higher taxa are inherited and, what is more, in botany we commonly have no idea of their selective value, if any: this, indeed, was the creed of Willis (1949) throughout his long life. Thus, the taxonomic characters of Myrtaceae have no evident selective value over those of Rosaceae; Pyrus is no better off than Prunus, or Rubus than Rosa, and a primitive family like Ranunculaceae thrives along with Compositae and Papilionaceae. These are a few examples only, but every large genus and higher taxon affords such, and they increase to tens of thousands. The theory of evolution is not merely the theory of the origin of species, but the only explanation of the fact that organisms can be classified into this hierarchy of natural affinity. Much evidence can be adduced in favour of the theory of evolution--from biology, bio-geography and paleontology, but I think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think most would break down before an inquisition. (pp. 96-97)

And here is the full and proper citation:

E.J. Corner, 1961. Evolution, pp. 95-114. In:
A.M. MacLeod & L.S. Cobley (eds.), "Contemporary Botanical Thought". Edinburgh, Scotland, U.K.: The Botanical Society of Edinburgh.

Corner's article was originally a lecture, from a series of lectures by several different botanists collected into a single book. I've made much about the incorrect form of the citation as repeated over and over by creationists because it indicates that none of them have bothered to read, or even look up, the original article; they have only copied it from other sources. Any protests that they are not citing this quotation out of context are disingenuous at best, since they have no idea in what context it originally appeared. This is sloppy at best, but becomes misleading to the extreme when they also fail to indicate that this quotation is over 40 years old. My advice, if ever confronted with this quotation, is to ask the creationist about the context in which it appeared, then ask how old it is, and finally ask whether a botanist would be likely to make the same statement about the fossil record of plants today.

More discussion later, as Corner had much more to say in this lecture.

Oolon Colluphid · 05-29-2003, 07:30 AM

Hi Russ! Welcome!

Quote:

Originally posted by steadele
As a theist who does post on TWEB I feel like I should explain why I rarely post in the whole creation/evolution debate.

Since I am an electrical engineer (and currently only have a Bachelors degree) I have not received formal training in most topics realted to creation/evolution. So I am left with reading books or internet articles/debates and trying to sort everything out to come to a conclusion. I have read stuff by prettty much every side of the debate, and I think the OECs' and IDists do have some good stuff. I also think the evolutionists have some good stuff as well.

Interesting. Since you aren�t properly qualified -- as you readily and most welcomely admit -- to judge these arguments, what makes you think that the OECs and IDiots do have some �good stuff�? If you�d like to tell us what these good points are, we�ll happily explain why they are stuff-n-nonsense, not good stuff.

A simple, short sample of their shortcomings:

OECs: 50% unverifiable and so not science, 50% ignoring of evidence.

IDiots: Claim intelligent design for flagella etc, yet ignore the implication that the intelligent designer elsewhere designed very stupidly, pointlessly and wastefully.

Any questions?

Cheers, Oolon

MrDarwin · 05-29-2003, 09:33 AM

Following the infamous quotation, Corner goes on to criticize textbooks for their poor presentation of plant evolution, and in particular opines that they have overlooked large tropical genera that amply illustrate evolution even in the absence of a good fossil record. In fact, Corner goes on to make further comments on the fossil record (pp. 100-101):

Quote:

From what I have said, it may be gathered that, when I open a book on evolution, I judge it from the way it handles taxonomy, or the natural classification, which is the attempt to see the vast picture of evolution. I am generally disappointed by the real ignorance of tropical botany and, in particular, by the lack of study of big plant genera. I do not mean the uniform genus of many microspecies, such as Hieracium and Poa, but the extremely varied genera found in tropical vegetation. I mention Cassia, Bauhinia, Acacia, Solanum, Vernonia, Ficus and Piper. As natural units they display extensive vegetative and reproductive evolution. Is it not possible to learn something from them, instead of using the eclectic method to subscribe some brainwave in the textbook manner? There are four good reasons why such splendid subjects as yet play no part in evolutionary theory. First, their classifiication is out of date, incomplete and not being studied monographically. Secondly, taxonomists shun the implications of their classification which, if good, must be phylogenetic. Thirdly, there is a belief, swelling at times to a conviction, that nothing can be known for certain about evolution in its major aspect unless supported by fossils; and it is well known that the fossil record tells nothing about the evolution of flowering plants. Lastly, books on evolution stem from the temperate countries where the flora is so detailed into microgenera that major problems are hardly discernible and big genera are considered as raw material to be processed into such micro-units.

Fossils versus the living. While in no way denying the importance of fossils, but hoping, indeed, that the fossil record will become more explicit, I strongly contest the view that we cannot learn how evolution has occurred from living things. They, only, can teach us the protoplasmic mechanism. Their very existence opens our eyes to the problems: and their classification, as I have said, is an attempt to present the course of evolution. We do not seek the derivation of Arum from Orchis, but from other plants classified as Araceae, and we have come to seek there, too, the derivation of Lemna. This is sound taxonomy. The life history of the flowering plant teems with its evolution. This is sound morphology. In neither instance has palaeobotany contributred to or detracted from the conclusions which await translation into terms of protoplasmic mechanism and proof by experiment. So it is with every living thing which has been classified. Modern taxonomy is the record, however blurred, of evolution.

The remainder of the lecture deals with the large tropical genus Ficus (figs) to illustrate the points made earlier in the paper, with Corner's objectives summed up on p. 102:

Quote:

In inflorescence, flower, and pollination, Ficus is about the most highly advanced genus of the plant kingdom. That seems unpropitious for a study of major evolution, but vegetatively it shows such variety that, whatever theory of vegetative evolution one prefers, Ficus will show the primitive and the advanced, with every gradation in between.

Corner then goes on to discuss in great detail how the morphology, biogeography, etc. of Ficus illustrate evolution, in lieu of any fossil evidence.

Finally, back to the original quotation: what was Corner trying to say? With the quoted sentences, he was simply commenting on the poor (at that time) fossil record for plants, that the fossil record of plants as known at that time was completely unhelpful to understand the evolution of plants, but then went on to detail at great length why a good fossil record is not essential to study the evolution of plants..

My personal take on his "special creation" quotation is that it was said tongue-in-cheek, as a rhetorical device to launch the rest of his lecture. Unfortunately I can't contact Dr. Corner to ask him whether he delivered this particular line with a smile or wink, as he has been dead for several years. A much better question to ask would be whether he would say the same thing today, or whether discoveries of fossils since 1961 have supported or overturned what we thought we knew about plant evolution. While there have been some surprises, and there are still some interesting problems, for the most part I think it's safe to predict that most botanists would say the former rather than the latter.

Dr.GH · 05-29-2003, 09:51 AM

I wrote this up some time ago, and part has been used for the T.O. FAQ on creationist misquotes:

Creationists like to misquote Professor E. J. H. Corner of the Botany Department of Cambridge University

Quote:

"...but I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation....Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition."

This is a heavily edited version of something that Corner wrote in a chapter he contributed to Contemporary Botanical Thought. (MacLeod, A.M. and Cobley, L.S. (eds) 1961. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, page 97).

In order to appreciate and understand Corner, we need two things: 1) an understanding of who Corner was (he died in 1996), and what was the full unedited context of the chopped bit used by creationists.

First of all, Corner was a botanist who specialized in tropical plants. His entire career was dedicated to the study of tropical plants and ecology. Evolutionary theory was to him as obvious and as natural as breathing. Consider his remark as to the origin of seaweed:

"Living seaweeds are the modern actors of the old drama. Two or three thousand million years ago, crowded plankton cells were pushed against bedrock and forced to change or die. They changed and became seaweeds." Corner, E. J. H. 1964. The Life of Plants.

Corner also seemed to be a man who liked to have a good time:

Quote:

He ( Ahmad Abid Munir (1936 - )) remembers the rollicking return from Britain en route to Borneo of the famous E.J.H. Corner, the former Director of the Gardens and a global expert on figs, fungi, seeds and just about everything else. He is infamous for the monkeys that he trained to climb trees and throw down herbarium material. A great party was had. Munir describes him as "charismatic, jolly, friendly, knowledgeable".

Ahmad Abid Munir, on the occasion of his retirement from the Australian National Botanic Gardens

Nor was he someone to be easily intimidated as the had survived the Japanese occupation of the Malay Peninsula during World War II.

In addition to his life long devotion to tropical ecology, Corner is best known for his �Durian Theory�: http://www.safesci.unsw.edu.au/cet/corner.htm

which placed tropical plants in the center of importance to plant evolution. It is this last item that allows the honest interpretation of the full and proper quote from Contemporary Botanical Thought (the tiny portion quoted by the creationist web pages and books are underlined).

From Carl Drews: http://www.theistic-evolution.com/references.html :

Quote:

"The theory of evolution is not merely the theory of the origin of species, but the only explanation of the fact that organisms can be classified into this hierarchy of natural affinity. Much evidence can be adduced in favour of the theory of evolution - from biology, bio-geography and palaeontology, but I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition.

Textbooks hoodwink. A series of more and more complicated plants is introduced - the alga, the fungus, the bryophyte, and so on, and examples are added eclectically in support of one or another theory - and that is held to be a presentation of evolution. If the world of plants consisted only of these few textbook types of standard botany, the idea of evolution might never have dawned, and the backgrounds of these textbooks are the temperate countries which, at best, are poor places to study world vegetation. The point, of course, is that there are thousands and thousands of living plants, predominantly tropical, which have never entered general botany, yet they are the bricks with which the taxonomist has built his temple of evolution, and where else have we to worship?"

Prof. E. J. H. Corner (Professor of Tropical Botany, Cambridge University, UK), 'Evolution' in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Anna M. Macleod and L. S. Cobley (editors), Oliver and Boyd, for the Botanical Society of Edinburgh, 1961, p. 97.

The first sentence, and the first part of the typically chopped up second sentence clearly focuses us on the truth of evolution. The second half of the second sentence (the part most often quoted by creationists) is obviously a criticism of the plant fossil record. And from what we know about Corner�s career, and from his next paragraph, we know that his criticism is particularly directed at the fossil tropical record. This is not the understanding that professional creationists try to force on us. The second paragraph completes Corner�s criticism and makes his meaning crystal clear: the Botanical establishment�s focus on European plants and paleontology can not provide the answers to the (then) important issues in plant evolution. Corner�s answer is that the tropical ecologies, and paleontology where the answers were and that textbooks and field work should be revised accordingly.

There are two really irritating things about this abuse of Corner�s work. First, the professional creationists waited until near Corner�s death before they started to miss use his then 35 year old book chapter, which denied him the opportunity to defend his work. Just think about it, in 1961 the significance DNA hadn�t even been discovered. Second is the way that the professional creationists habitually misrepresent the facts in their effort to bail out their sinking literalist ship.

PS: Carl Drews is a Christian evolutionist, and I recommend his web page.

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/index.html

MrDarwin · 05-29-2003, 10:17 AM

So... getting back to the OP, I'd like to suggest that Sauron present the Corner quotation as the commonly quoted sentence fragment:

Quote:

...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.

as it is quoted on numerous creationist websites, e.g.:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html

and ask some creationists what they think Corner is saying with this quotation, devoid of any context.

Warcraft3 · 05-29-2003, 10:19 AM

Oolon said:

Quote:

Hi Russ! Welcome!

Thank you Oolon.

Then Oolon quoted me:

Quote:

As a theist who does post on TWEB I feel like I should explain why I rarely post in the whole creation/evolution debate.

Since I am an electrical engineer (and currently only have a Bachelors degree) I have not received formal training in most topics realted to creation/evolution. So I am left with reading books or internet articles/debates and trying to sort everything out to come to a conclusion. I have read stuff by prettty much every side of the debate, and I think the OECs' and IDists do have some good stuff. I also think the evolutionists have some good stuff as well.

And Oolon responded:

Quote:

Interesting. Since you aren�t properly qualified -- as you readily and most welcomely admit -- to judge these arguments, what makes you think that the OECs and IDiots do have some �good stuff�?

I did not say I was unable to judge the arguments. I said the fact that it is not my area of "expertise" (Actually I am not an expert in anything) contributes to me not posting very much. I actually attmepted to clarify this with the comments that followed the section you quoted:

Quote:

So instead of me just posting a link to some article or commenting on a debate between "experts" I just keep quiet unless I really feel I can make some kind of comment which will contribute to the thread. There are many people who do post and many of them are far more qualified than I am.

I will try to participate more in the future, although for me to do so will require alot of time consuming reading. Even then, I may not have anything earth shattering to say that everyone hasnt already heard before anyway.

So I do not think I am unable to read the "experts" and judge the worth of some argument or bit of evidence. I do think I am quite capable of doing so, and that is not the reason I rarely post. I rarely post because there are people on both sides of the debate who know more than I do and very quickly make points and then address these in depth. Thus, I would not be adding anything to the discussion, but simply repeating an argument made by someone else.

Then Oolon said:

Quote:

If you�d like to tell us what these good points are, we�ll happily explain why they are stuff-n-nonsense, not good stuff.

Yes I am sure you would be quite happy to show me the error of my ways. I will engage in discussion as time permits and will try to keep up with our discussion.

But let me say this before we begin any such discussion, I have read several books and websites on these issues. I have seen some (there are so many I limit my experience to just some) of the arguments on both sides. I have seen the arguments by Hugh Ross, Eugenie Scott, Dembski, Behe, Dawkins, Wells, Gould, Keith Miller, Kenneth Miller, Mike Gene, Glen Morton, etc. I have seen these arguments and I think that both sides raise some good points. Usually when I discuss these issues with people and they bring up points or arguments they are nothing new, and are things I have already heard or read before. This does not mean I do not welcome discussion, because I do.

Oolon also made the comment:

Quote:

A simple, short sample of their shortcomings:

OECs: 50% unverifiable and so not science, 50% ignoring of evidence.

Every and any theory on the topic of evolution/creation has elements that are "unverifiable" to a degree. And what evidence do you think OEC "ignores"? To ignore something is to willfully do so, so are you implying that OECs knowingly ignore data?

Oolon also added:

Quote:

IDiots: Claim intelligent design for flagella etc, yet ignore the implication that the intelligent designer elsewhere designed very stupidly, pointlessly and wastefully.

I find the flagella arguments (since you specifically brought it up) to be pretty good ones on the ID side of the coin. The explanations I have read on the "origin" of the flagella leave much to be desired and make a lot of (in my opinion) rather convenient assumptions. The type 3 secretory system explanation comes to mind for example. As to a designer being "stupid, pointless, and wasteful" those statements are more about the character or personal attributes of the designer, then they are about the question of the existance of a designer. They also enter into the realms of philosophy and/or theology and are not applicable to the overall question of "Is there a Designer?" After this question is answered, then you can delve into the specifics.

Quote:

Any questions?

Cheers, Oolon [/B]

I am not sure how you meant that statement to be taken, but it does sound a bit insulting to me. "Any questions" is often meant as a declaration of victory after you have completely defeated an opponent and he is just sitting there silent in defeat, completely amazed at the totality of your victory.

I assure you ,I do not feel that I am in the position of defeat described above.

If you did not mean the statement in that manner, then I apologize for misjudging you. I often meet people who think they are much smarter than everyone else and feel the need to tell everyone how superior they are. So I can be a bit cynical of people at times, though I am trying to improve in this area.

I look forward to further discussion.

Russ

MrDarwin · 05-29-2003, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by steadele
I find the flagella arguments (since you specifically brought it up) to be pretty good ones on the ID side of the coin. The explanations I have read on the "origin" of the flagella leave much to be desired and make a lot of (in my opinion) rather convenient assumptions.

This (as does most of "intelligent design", as far as I can tell) boils down to "I can't imagine how it could possibly have evolved, therefore it must not have evolved." The problem with such an approach is that, like the discussion on the fossil record of plants, the things we don't know today become the things we do know tomorrow. That's the whole point of science: we seek to find out that which we do not already know. Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't, sometimes the things we find out aren't what we expected, and sometimes we find answers to questions we didn't even ask.

As far as I can tell, the I.D.ists look at a flagellum, throw up their hands, and say "it's just too complex to have evolved!" The problem with "irreducible complexity" is that I have yet to see any proponent of "intelligent design" offer any testable hypotheses or propose how the design hypothesis could be falsified (short of building a time machine and going back to watch such things evolve).

Quote:

Originally posted by steadele
As to a designer being "stupid, pointless, and wasteful" those statements are more about the character or personal attributes of the designer, then they are about the question of the existance of a designer. They also enter into the realms of philosophy and/or theology and are not applicable to the overall question of "Is there a Designer?" After this question is answered, then you can delve into the specifics.

The issue of poor or suboptimal design is an important one. The whole point of "intelligent design" is that some things seem so well "designed" that they could never have evolved. But if that's the case, then what do clearly suboptimal designs mean? That the designer was incompetent, or got sloppy? That the designer did design some things, but others just happened on their own? That there were several designers, some better than others? (Where do we draw the line between "good" and "bad" design, anyway, and what does it mean if they fall on a continuum from good to bad?) These are things that "intelligent design" needs to address.

KnightWhoSaysNi · 05-29-2003, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by steadele
Oolon said:
I find the flagella arguments (since you specifically brought it up) to be pretty good ones on the ID side of the coin. The explanations I have read on the "origin" of the flagella leave much to be desired and make a lot of (in my opinion) rather convenient assumptions. The type 3 secretory system explanation comes to mind for example. As to a designer being "stupid, pointless, and wasteful" those statements are more about the character or personal attributes of the designer, then they are about the question of the existance of a designer. They also enter into the realms of philosophy and/or theology and are not applicable to the overall question of "Is there a Designer?" After this question is answered, then you can delve into the specifics.

Hi Russ,

If you had time, I'd recommend looking at this video presentation by Kenneth Miller that you can watch here:

Paley in a Test Tube

The video is about 23 minutes long, and Dr. Miller critiques Behe's ID argument from irreducible complexity. In my opinion, his critique was quite compelling. If you see it, let me know what you think about it.

NialScorva · 05-29-2003, 10:45 AM

Russ,

Engineers have somewhat of a bad stereotype with actual scientists in the Evolution vs Creation debate, since there seems to be quite a few engineers in the creationist ranks.

I am an engineer, myself. My personal belief is that this is due to the way in which we approach our jobs. Scientists are always reverse-engineering things. When an engineer is reverse-engineering something, it's almost always to find the (mis-)design elements for use. Everything revolves around the thought of "design", whether it be "how do I...", "how did they...", or "how can I use this in a...". It makes it hard to consider the possibility of something not being designed when you're evaluating everything in the context of being designed or as a raw material/ispiration for design.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-29-2003, 10:45 AM	#30
NialScorva Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Median strip of DC beltway Posts: 1,888	Russ, Engineers have somewhat of a bad stereotype with actual scientists in the Evolution vs Creation debate, since there seems to be quite a few engineers in the creationist ranks. I am an engineer, myself. My personal belief is that this is due to the way in which we approach our jobs. Scientists are always reverse-engineering things. When an engineer is reverse-engineering something, it's almost always to find the (mis-)design elements for use. Everything revolves around the thought of "design", whether it be "how do I...", "how did they...", or "how can I use this in a...". It makes it hard to consider the possibility of something not being designed when you're evaluating everything in the context of being designed or as a raw material/ispiration for design.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.