SI DIGEST APPENDIX
SkeptInq (SkeptInq@aol.com)
Thu, 15 Jan 1998 14:46:25 EST
REVIEW OF PBS' FIRING LINE CREATION/EVOLUTION DEBATE
Written by John Forester
Resolved: That Evolutionists Should Acknowledge Creation:
The Science versus Religion Debate,
December, 1997
1 Forum
This two-hour debate was presented on the Public Broadcasting System program
Firing Line in December, 1997. The moderator was Michael Kingsley.
For the proposition that evolutionists should acknowledge creation were:
William F. Buckley, Jr., conservative author
Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry
Philip E. Johnson, professor of law
David Berlinskey, writer on mathematics and religion.
Against the proposition were:
Barry Lynn, minister and attorney, director of American's United for
Separation of Church and State.
Eugenie Scott, anthropologist, CSICOP fellow and director of Center for
Science Education
Michael Ruse, professor of philosophy
Kenneth Miller, professor in cell biology.
2 Opening Statements
2.1 W. F. Buckley
Buckley said that he avoided extremes. However, naturalistic theory is
fanciful, and without theory the naturalistic result must be chaos. Buckley
supports the anthropic view that the universe was designed for human life
to exist.
2.2 Barry Lynn
Evolution is a fact and has a satisfactory theory that has received no
substantial challenge since it was first enunciated. In his view,
creationism is about fundamentalist religiosity, discredited science, and
plain nonsense. The result is that schools teach pseudo-science instead of
real science. We have to be able to recognize the difference between
scientific and religious questions. The creationists should either provide
a coherent theory to explain the facts that are known to exist, or they
should shut up.
3 Statements, Questions and Answers
3.1 Philip Johnson
Evolutionary science assumes materialism and asserts, therefore, that
evolution must be by unintelligent causes. The appearance that living
things have of being designed with a purpose, therefore, must be explained
by evolutionists by materialistic or naturalistic causes because that is
required by their dogma which denies the supernatural. This is a very
religious attitude. His side will separate real science from religious
questions.
3.2 Eugenie Scott
Evolution means change, both in the universe and in biology. In biology it
means shared ancestors from which is descent with modifications. This is
fact. The difference in opinions is about causes. Who did it is not a
scientific question, just a religious one.
3.3 Johnson/Scott
Johnson: Darwinism encourages atheism, doesn't it? Scott: Only for Biblical
creationists. 40% of scientists believe in an ultimate cause. Johnson
presented the two fish, Jesus and Darwin, objects of intelligent design. He
tried to show that Darwinism is an argument for atheism. Scott: Don't
confuse scientific and religious questions. Johnson says then that evolution
does not occur, and that random modification with natural selection is
insufficiently powerful to produce it. Darwinism is based on the metaphysical
principle of atheism. However, he says that he agrees with descent with
modifications, qualifying his belief as that natural selection works only to
select among the existing and unchanging gene pool of a species and does not
produce new species. Scott asked what gene pool did Johnson consider? Johnson
said that we haven't seen new high-level groups,
new phyla, being produced.
3.4 Michael Behe
The universe is the evidence for the intelligent designer. A) The universe
had a start. B) The universe fits life. C) Life started. D) The interactive
complexity in cells, his own field, demonstrates intelligent design. He
presented his view that the rotating bacterial flagellum must have been
intelligently designed because if you remove any part it won't function. He
showed Haeckel's pictures (1860?) of similar embryonic development of
different animals, and said that these were frauds, trying to say that
evolutionists were all frauds.
3.5 Kenneth Miller
Demonstrated that Behe's own example of the mousetrap as irreducibly complex
design is inaccurate, because he removed a part from a rattrap and it still
worked. Then he presented a biochemical reaction in bacteria that developed in
a new way when one necessary enzyme was prevented from developing. Behe ducked
those issues, asserting that he means functions and not parts, and quoting
favorable reviews of his book Darwin's Black Box.
3.6 Michael Ruse
He accepts Darwinism. Creationism is neither science nor religion. Johnson
tried to tar Ruse with the brush of liberal social theories and actions. Ruse
replied that many scientists were liberal, but there were others, such as R.
A. Fisher, whose conservatism would keep one awake at night. Berlinskey then
asked what theory of biology did Ruse recognize, because Berkinskey couldn't
recognize any such theory. Ruse listed many theories, natural selection,
various genetic theories, and others. None of these satisfied Berlinskey, who
wants a theory that is so complete that an engineer could implement it. Behe
quoted Ruse to the effect that the Big Bang theory was philosophically
unacceptable, and Ruse agreed that was his opinion. No one then asked what
all that meant.
Buckley suggested that this discussion was merely in metaphors. Ruse replied
that indeed many of our statements in the social and in the physical sciences
were metaphors, which is how we explain in words the knowledge that we have
gained, and which can be, and should be, checked by scientific investigation.
He is satisfied with the use of metaphors in this sense.
3.7 David Berlinskey
He preached (my best description of his words, thoughts, and manner) that
Darwinism is the last mystical religion, following Freudianism and Marxism
to the grave. Natural selection is known to be insufficient, given existing
complexity. He presented a sort of Pascal's wager, saying that we might
discover that naturalism is correct, or we might discover god, and if we
discover god who will feel diminished?
Lynn quoted Berlinskey's writings, asking why are only some plants
carnivorous, and why don't women have beautiful tails? Lynn states that
Berlinskey doesn't understand that different ecological niches will produce
different species. Berlinskey agrees that that is a hypothesis that he doesn't
understand. Berlinskey says that after the fact we can explain the existence
of the part, but we can't predict the outcome of a natural situation from
general principles, which is a necessary requirement of "normal science."
Scott asked what is the problem with understanding adaptive reproduction?
She asked Berlinskey about his statement that the fossil record is
incomplete, when, for example, the reptile-mammal transition is so well
documented that we have trouble deciding which is the dividing line between
the two. Berlinskey replies that this transition is well documented, but not
nearly as closely as Darwinism requires, while the transition to chordates is
undocumented, as is the development of insects (from other multisegmented
Devonian life).
Lynn pointed out that frequently, where gaps in the fossil record have been
argued, we have later discovered intervening forms. So what does Berlinskey
require, 16 more forms after the 16 that have just been discovered? Berlinskey
replies that we must have a panoply of intervening species, claiming, or at
least trying to claim, that since they do not show in [the discovered part] of
the fossil record they did not ever exist.
3.8 Kenneth Miller
So Berlinskey and others claim that there is not theory of natural history?
Well, we have the fossil record showing sequences of appearances and
disappearances. The only conclusion to be drawn from a creationist
interpretation of that record is that the creator is incompetent, because
99% of species are now extinct. That demonstrates that there can be no
viable theory of intelligent design.
Behe again refers to Haeckel's fraudulent drawings, but Miller replies that
he has already published a correction to his textbook.
Johnson asks Miller for his most powerful demonstration of Darwinism's
creative power. Miller replies (1) that there is a unique genus of
butterflies in Hawaii that is dependent on bananas. However, bananas, we
know from the historical record, were brought to Hawaii only 1,000 years
ago. Therefore, this genus must have evolved in the last 1,000 years.
Miller replies (2) that mutation of human cells to respond to the
prevention of the production of tryptophan, achieved in only 7 generations
of cells. Berlinskey says he doesn't believe it, and Miller replies that
then Berlinskey's argument is merely one of personal incredulity.
Johnson says that Darwinism [or life?] requires an immense amount of
information that is not in the fossil record. Miller replies that he has
provided two examples, how much more does Johnson demand?
Behe quotes Miller's writings that changes in early life of the embryo are
likely to be deadly, while changes in the later development are not likely
to be so deadly. But, Behe says, we now know that early embryos can change,
so that therefore Miller's statement is fraudluent and therefore no
scientist understands how Darwinism can affect embryology. Miller gives the
simple reply that Behe is deliberately misquoting Miller's statement,
because low probability is not a statement of impossibility, but Behe
pretended that they were.
3.9 W. F. Buckley
Ruse asked Buckley why he wasn't on their side of the debate. Was it for
social reasons? Or for religious reasons? Buckley replied that he was not
naive and he objected to ideological fixity, from dogmatism from which
everything else derives. All dogmas are not equal. Dogmas disguise
immethodical thought. To materialists, materialism comes first, science
second. Therefore, materialists oppose creationist thought for dogmatic
reasons.
Scott asks "Why do we need to invoke God in scientific work?" Buckley
replies that "We demand that scientists acknowledge creation as an
alternative explanation, one that we find more plausible."
Miller presents a quotation that the convergence of evidence for evolution
in many disparate fields demonstrates the actuality of evolution, and asks
Buckley who made that statement. Buckley agrees with the statement, which
was made by Pope John 22, and MIller agrees also.
Johnson quotes Leuwonton as saying that scientists cannot allow a divine
foot in the door. In public schools, wouldn't that be an establishment of
religion? Barry Lynn replies that it would not be, but it would be bad
teaching. One can be a theistic believer in evolution, "As I am."
Johnson asks about immanent continuing design. Lynn replies that he
believes in a God-created system, but we still have scientific questions
and religious questions, and they are different. Evolution is a fact.
3.10 Berlinskey and Ruse
Berlinskey asserts that he has no interest in divine creation. There are
gaps in the fossil record. Does Lynn agree? Lynn does. Berlinskey then
asserts that therefore Darwinism is wrong because the fossil record is not
complete. Only an unbroken record of succession would satisfy a legitimate
scientific temperament. Lynn replies, "So we haven't found them? We have
found many in the past."
Berlinskey questions Ruse as writing that studies of the origin of life are
often philosophical. Should high-school students be told this? Ruse replies
of course, provided that they are mature enough, and they generally are,
just be sure that the caveats are expressed.
Berlinskey says that Ruse advocates the criterion of falsifiability for
scientific theories. What then would be a falsifiable theory for the design
of bacterial flagella? Ruse replies that an investigation of the bacterial
DNA might show it. For example, if that investigation showed that bacterial
DNA was closer to human DNA than the DNA of gorillas and chimpanzees is to
human DNA, then Darwinism would have a great knife in its heart.
Ruse states that Behe gives a great argument for the theory of irreducible
complexity, quoting Behe's own words describing this theory as great as
Newton's and others. Then what is Behe's theory? Behe replies that you can
detect intelligent design in the characteristics of living organisms.
Berlinskey then asks Ruse about Crick's hypothesis of galactic panspermia
[spores of life were delivered to Earth by spaceships from afar], because
development of life on Earth was impossible. No conclusion about that.
Ruse then asks Berlinskey about parasites. Were these created by the
creator as well, or do creationists get all the good things and
evolutionists get all the bad things?
Buckley then quotes Leuwontin's argument for materialism as the only
begetter of truth, we much abandon superstition. What is Ruse's opinion of
that? Ruse replies that that is not a necessary conclusion, although he
believes it. Barry Lynn replies that one can believe in the data of
evolution and recognize the failure of all attempts to contradict it, but
that doesn't disprove the existence of a Creator.
Buckley asks whether randomness is adequate to do what has occurred. Barry
Lynn replies that randomness may well be one of God's tools. We have to
separate our scientific views from our religious ones, which creationists
don't. Do you, he asks Buckley, understand God's mind so well as to rule
out the possibility that God used evolution as his process to bring his
design to fruition?
Buckley declines to answer that one; his mind is not great enough. We have
mysteries, and we must accept mysteries, and we must accept that God's
intent is a mystery, but that doesn't reject revelation.
Lynn asks Buckley why he objects to evolution, considering that all
challenges have failed? Buckley replies that thoughts about Darwinism have
developed, nowadays, to the concept that we must reject the materialist
position.
3.11 Johnson
Johnson rejects all reference to Biblical doctrine, he rejects literal
creationism. When presented with Creationist children's book showing
dinosaurs and humans as contemporaries, Johnson denies any connection with
that. "Literal creationism is as silly as is the work of Dawkins." We must
put aside all Bible issues and ask ourselves what is known from scientific
evidence?
Miller presented the fossil record for he transition between ancient land
mammals and ancient whales, a big gap. Behe wrote that this is too big a
gap. So Miller then discloses the recent discovery of 3 intermediate
sequential forms, all properly sited. Johnson then asks where are these
transitional forms. These aren't them. He makes the mystifying statement
that the fossil record is least Darwinistic where it is most complete, in
marine invertebrates. The examples used by evolutionists come from where
the fossil record is least complete. These forms are not transitional and
we don't know how they could be.
3.12 Michael Behe
Behe reasserts the anthropic argument, this time from cosmology and
physics. [If the world were different, we wouldn't exist.] He asserts that
astronomer Fred Hoyle believed this. So what?
3.13 Berlinskey
Berlinskey, again asserting that the fossil record is incomplete, asked
"How many changes were required to go from a dog-like mammal to a
whale-like mammal? Give a number." Scott replied that the question is
absurd, because they haven't proposed such a number. Berlinskey states that
evolutionists cannot have a theory unless they can state the precise number
of changes that are required.
Berlinskey quotes the statement that nothing in biology makes sense without
evolution. Why then, Mr. Miller, do none of your scientific papers use the
term "evolution?" Miller replies that of his 75 peer-reviewed and published
papers, 3 do use that term. However, he says, evolutionary concepts are
very useful when considering biology, even if you don't need to mention
them. He states, regarding the number of changes, that we have new species
of sunflowers developed in only 10 generations.
Berlinskey then asks again about the number of changes for the dog-like
mammal to the whale-like mammal. He gets pinned down to some number like
100,000. Miller then replies that that is far too many, as there are only
about 10,00 genes that can be changed. Besides, asks Miller, if Berlinskey
agrees that the reptile-mammal transition is well documented, how can
Berlinskey still assert that transitions are absent? If if isn't descent by
modification, what hypothesis does Berlinskey hold? Put up or shut up.
Berlinskey then states that he holds no position on descent by
modification. He keeps on preaching about species entering and leaving the
fossil record. The more studying, the less plausible, so he says. Miller
retorts that the more studying, the greater the evidence and the more
credible is the theory.
Berlinskey asserts that he doesn't advocate intelligent design. He won't
answer questions about the relationship of fossils. He has no replacement
for Darwinian theory, only he observes that it is flawed.
4 Closing Arguments
4.1 Barry Lynn
We have asked for alternative explanations, and we have been given none.
Berlinskey, just seconds ago, said he hadn't any. Behe says it may be God,
or not. Johnson says that there is no Biblical answer, stating that we must
first debunk evolution and then work out a new theory. Evolution is not
ideology, it is the fact of change. Behe says complexity requires
intelligent design, but mousetraps are made of inanimate material by
humans, while living beings are different. Behe is not comparing apples and
oranges, but plastic apples to organic oranges. Barry closes by quoting the
first verse of John: "In the beginning was the Word," and maybe the word
was "Evolve."
4.2 William F. Buckley
The other side suggests deism is satisfactory. He quotes Disraeli at an
Oxford conference on the same subject 130 years ago. "What question is now
placed before society? Is man an ape or an angel? I'm on the side of the
angels." Buckley characterizes this as brilliant but empty wit.
5 My Evaluations
Not one of the creationist side advocated literal creationism, not as it
has been known in American political circles. The most that any one of them
advocated is a sort of immanent deism, a continuing interference in
evolution by a creator of some sort, combined with rejection of literal
Biblical stories by some.
Buckley said practically nothing of import.
Behe tried hardest to present something of importance, but he failed to
press on in his specialty, perhaps with reason. The first bacterial
flagellum may have just waved back and forth, producing some motion, and
only later developed a rotating motion, possible only because of its small
size. Animal limbs can't rotate, just too many parts in the way, but
something as small as a flagellum can, but that doesn't have to be
developed from nothing in one jump. In his other arguments, Behe's claims
were jumped on by the other side, particularly by Miller's demonstrations
and visual aids. Furthermore, Behe tried to support his arguments by
quoting favorable reviews from others, which is not a scientific approach
at all.
Johnson, while supposedly advocating the avoidance of dogmatism, argued
from a solidly dogmatic conservatism, attempting to tar evolutionists with
all the social evils that Johnson despises. He argues that random variation
plus natural selection is insufficient, without giving any evidence or
theory as to why it is insufficient. He practically said that he didn't
believe facts.
Johnson is a lawyer, and I think that he would be a formidable opponent in
a law case, where cases are decided by a process that has little in common
with scientific discussion.
Berlinskey apparently believes that all scientific theories, to be valid,
must document every step of every way, as in a mathematical proof, one of
the areas in which he says he has written. He fails entirely to understand
the difference between deduction, which he understands, and induction,
which he doesn't. He insists that unless we can produce detailed
predictions, as would be required of an engineering theory, of the progress
of evolution, we have no scientific theory.
Berlinskey is an agitator, a preacher for whatever it is that he believes
in, which he wouldn't say and which may even be nihilism. While he has the
least intellectual presence of any of the participants, his speaking manner
and the confidence of ignorance may well make him the most dangerous
opponent in political affairs.
Eugenie Scott did well in advocating the proper definition of evolution as
descent with modifications, largely but not entirely through natural
selection, separating the facts of its existence and how it works from the
question of who did it.
Michael Ruse maintained the same point, saying that while his personal
opinion is atheistic, that is a religious question that is outside the
scientific ones, which don't require and should not consider religious
answers.
Kenneth Miller provided the best detailed advocacy of the evolutionary view
and the best detailed defense against its critics on the other side. He
showed that the arguments of Behe and of Johnson and of Berlinskey were
erroneous. He demonstrated some arguments for evolution from the fossil
record in a convincing way.
Barry Lynn kept the argument together by maintaining that evolution exists
but that it doesn't disprove a creator, while the other side had offered
neither challenge to evolution nor a substitute theory of their own.
As to the title of the debate, that evolutionists should acknowledge
creation, the advocates of that view presented no real reasons why that
should be done. All that they presented were largely invalid criticisms of
evolution by natural selection, many of them completely unscientific. The
opponents of that view argued convincingly that a naturalistic view is
sufficient for scientific work and that wider hypothesizing is a religious
or philosophical question rather than a scientific one. Their defense of
both the existence and the mechanisms of evolution, insofar as the latter
are known reasonably well, was entirely successful.