If and only if Cornelius Hunter made sense, then...

Well in order to choose between two competing hypotheses, you have to actually have two hypotheses. Ideally they will make different predictions and one will ideally have more predictive and explanatory power. If Hunter want s to claim that there is another hypothesis that accounts for the observed pattern better than the theory of evolution then he had better come up with another hypothesis.

With regards to shared errors in pseudogenes, the point is that the observed pattern cannot be explained by shared mechanisms or common design or any type of intelligent design. The pattern is completely consistent with descent with modification and the pattern observed for other data sets. The pattern is not something was predicted by any creationist and cannot readily be accounted for by any creationist model. If a creationist wants to explain why he expected this particular pattern of shared errors in pseudogenes then let him speak now or forever hold his peace.

Of course the above assumes that creationists are willing to read the scientific literature and are familiar with the evidence and qualified to interpret it. We have falsified that hypothesis many times here on PT.

In there early 80s IBM was concerned that their competitors were copying their Winchester drive designs. So, they placed a curved piece of plastic around the outside of the platters that looked real aerodynamic but didn't do a damn thing. When similar pieces of plastic showed up they took it as proof that the design was not really a design but just blindly copied. I guess IBM should have fired their engineers because their conclusions didn't come from science either.

Well, at least the creationists are at least attempting to deal with pseudogenes... EPIC FAIL, Cornelius, but some marks for trying...

Rich Blinne said: ...they placed a curved piece of plastic around the outside of the platters that looked real aerodynamic but didn't do a damn thing.

Rich Blinne said: In there early 80s IBM was concerned that their competitors were copying their Winchester drive designs. So, they placed a curved piece of plastic around the outside of the platters that looked real aerodynamic but didn't do a damn thing. When similar pieces of plastic showed up they took it as proof that the design was not really a design but just blindly copied. I guess IBM should have fired their engineers because their conclusions didn't come from science either.

Hunter may be unaware that he is committing the "contrived dualism" fallacy. Apparently, he thinks that the phrase "evolution is not correct" is the same as "design is correct."

Accordingly, Hunter interprets the textbook authors as claiming that orderly change is not expected if intelligent design is correct, even though that's clearly not what the authors intended to convey.

So I’m at a loss. If I had to guess, I’d say he’s just mad and letting emotion run his argumentation, under the cover of unsupported blather about metaphysics. Maybe this textbook is being used in his home town or something?

I really wouldn't bother with Cornelius. Look what his site is linked to for a start, Uncommon Descent.

If you follow his bio, it leads to Biola University (should be Ebola). Their doctrinal statement says all must be subservient to the bible - http://www.biola.edu/about/doctrinal-statement/ - and then he claims he has no specific position, just that evolution isn't convincing - Ha!

I go to UD quite often, sometimes just so I can have an excuse to throw things at my computer screen, or sometimes just to have a belly-laugh. Hunter has used this textbook, and its authors to fulminate against evolutionists generally, he's angry; good. Anger makes unconvincing, ideologically driven, poor argument.

If you scroll down the list of notories writing at this site you will see one effort at science recently written on the 16th of July, 'Short Peptide...'. The intersting thing is (I didn't read it, any purported science at this site, isn't), it received one comment, I didn't read that either.

I note that the egregious Denyse O'Leary is conspicuous by her absence, and that most comments on any post are from a 'hardcore' of nut-jobs. Bornagain, and Kairosfocus spring to mind.

All in all UD is preaching to the converted, hanging on by the finger nails of hacks who wouldn't know science if it jumped up and said, "Hi Cornelius, I'm science."

KP said: Well, at least the creationists are at least attempting to deal with pseudogenes... EPIC FAIL, Cornelius, but some marks for trying...

1. If A then we expect B
2. If not A then we do not expect B
This would mean that only A can be held responsible for B.
So I do think this is an "if and only if" statement.

If gravity then we expect falling apple.
If not gravity then we do not expect falling apple

Eddie Janssen said: 1. If A then we expect B 2. If not A then we do not expect B This would mean that only A can be held responsible for B. So I do think this is an "if and only if" statement. If gravity then we expect falling apple. If not gravity then we do not expect falling apple

A Rice said:

Rich Blinne said: ...they placed a curved piece of plastic around the outside of the platters that looked real aerodynamic but didn't do a damn thing.

My guess is you have the story wrong. The "curved piece of plastic" or the functional equivalent is used today to cut turbulence - a smooth layer of air makes it easier to position the head within 1/1,000,000 of an inch. -Current Hard Drive Engineer

Michael Roberts said:

KP said: Well, at least the creationists are at least attempting to deal with pseudogenes... EPIC FAIL, Cornelius, but some marks for trying...

Surely for being trying. Some years ago Hunter posted on the ASA list on his specialty of history of science. It was most bizarre and usually wrong.

I'm afraid we'll be going round and round on this one. The cytochrome c sequence comparison alone is a compelling argument to me. Coupled with general taxonomic arguments (nested hierarchies) and the progression of the fossil record, it's virtually a slam dunk confirmation. I know you disagree, but what more can I say. I find the textbook arguments convincing--you don't.

Well for starters you could try explaining *why* you find these arguments convincing in the face of major problems. You did not reply to my explanation why this is not compelling evidence a few days back when we discussed this. Now you assert this claim again, and again with no justification. Here, again, is why this claim is bad science: ############################################### Here are 3 criteria for judging the quality of evidence: ---- A. The evidence should not include significant problems for the theory (obviously). B. The evidence should be the fulfillment of a somewhat narrow prediction of the theory. That is, if the evidence as well as several other outcomes are all accommodated by the theory, then the evidence is not compelling. C. The evidence severely damages all alternative theories (need to be careful not to misrepresent or ignore the alternative theories, of course). ---- The nested hierarchy data suggest or reveal: 1. The designs of the species seem to be clustered, and the clusters seem to cluster in larger groups, and so on, in what is called a nested hierarchical pattern. 2. There are a great many exceptions that violate the pattern, at all levels, such that, for example, a paper out of Doolittle's lab has called for a "relaxation of tree thinking." 3. There is massive convergence, meaning similar designs show up in distant clusters. #3 fails on A. #2 fails on A and 1-3 all fail on B. Also, none succeed on C. So as with the fossil evidence, pseudogenes, small-scale adaptation, etc., this is not compelling evidence for evolution.

Nick, why on Earth are you trying to make sense of anything written by Cornelius Hunter? That way lies madness.

Rich

I was involved in those ASA discussions in 2005 . He was giving his perverse views on Darwin when he completely misinterpreted the history. Where he got his ideas from I do not know, but it wasn't from anything Darwin wrote or his contemporaries.

BTW I could never decide whether he was YEC or not

Well isn't the problem with ID that its logical statement goes "if anything, then ID"?

I suspect that Hunter's just jealous that evolution can make something resembling a prediction. It must get tiring cranking out post hoc rationalizations, always clinging to the works of others and trying to figure out how to reinterpret it as supporting ID.

If the theory of evolution is not correct, on the other hand, then such orderly change is not expected.

Nick, why on Earth are you trying to make sense of anything written by Cornelius Hunter? That way lies madness.

For awhile I have been developing the view that most people, most of the time, do and say what makes sense in their own heads. This includes creationists -- they typically aren't lying, they're just BSing about stuff (see the book "On BS" for more) they don't actually know much about. So what becomes puzzling is obvious self-contradictions in very short periods of time...

The only thing I can figure is that maybe Mr. Hunter was projecting what he wanted them to write instead of actually comprehending what was there, due to his being so angry at evolution. Thus, in his mind, "If the theory of evolution is not correct, on the other hand, then such orderly change is not expected," becomes something like, "If and only if the theory of evolution if and only if is not correct, on the other if only if hand, then if only and if such orderly change if and only if is not expected, Jesus can fly like a birdie, and walk on water too." That's the only explanation I can figure. I don't really know.

I'm actually with Cornelius on this one, at least for logical consistency.
A if and only if B requires A ==> B and B ==> A.
He says science should only make A ==> B statements (if evolution, then orderly change).

The article he complains about says !A ==> !B (if !evolution, then !orderly change). This is logically equivalent to B ==> A (orderly change implies evolution), and is the wrong way around. Combine this with A ==> B (if evolution, then orderly change), and we have (evolution iff orderly change).

Mike Elzinga said:

"...what I took away from Hunter’s rant was not so much his picking at logic as it was his apparent rage that intelligent design was not even thought of as an alternative..."

You know what would be amusing?

Somebody in the know should do an analysis of Hunter's bugaboos, say, the gross organizational structure of pseudogenes, or the fossil record, etc and then mathematically correlate it the given propensities of various gods. The Sumerian goddess Inanna, for example, was associated with trees, rain, storms, chaos. Compare with Yahweh, who will come up short. Demonstrate by Hunter's own criteria that the "Designer" was likely to be Sumerian. Or perhaps Zoroastrian...

I wonder what he might then have to say about "apologetic" scientists and their 'religious dogma'. :D

Well try this:

If evolution, then a nested hierarchy of mistakes in pseudogenes and SINE insertions corresponding to the nested hierarchy of genetic similarity and the time of appearance of groups in the fossil record.

If design, then any pattern at all, depending on who did what, when, their methods and their motives, but no nonfunctional pseudogenes and definitely no shared mistakes in nonfunctional pseudogenes (unless the designer was just trying to give the appearance of common descent for some unspecified reason).

If evolution is not correct then such orderly change is not expected? Tell us more.

What are all the possibilities aside from evolution and why do none of them predict “such orderly change”?

This claim, that such shared errors indicate, or demonstrate, or reveal common ancestry, is the result of an implicit truth claim which does not, and cannot, come from science.

"More compelling evidence for the shared ancestry of humans and other primates comes from their hemoglobin — not just their working hemoglobin, but a broken hemoglobin gene, too. [10] In one region of our genomes humans have five genes for proteins that act at various stages of development (from embryo through adult) as the second (betalike) chain of hemoglobin. This includes the gene for the beta chain itself, two almost identical copies of a gamma chain (which occurs in fetal hemoglobin), and several others. Chimpanzees have the very same genes in the very same order. In the region between the two gamma genes and a gene that works after birth, human DNA contains a broken gene (called a "pseudogene") that closely resembles a working gene for a beta chain, but has features in its sequence that preclude it from coding successfully for a protein. "Chimp DNA has a very similar pseudogene at the same position. The beginning of the human pseudogene has two particular changes in two nucleotide letters that seems to deactivate the gene. The chimp pseudogene has the exact same changes. A bit further down in the human pseudogene is a deletion mutation, where one particular letter is missing. For technical reasons, the deletion irrevocably messes up the gene's coding. The very same letter is missing in the chimp gene. Toward the end of the human pseudogene another letter is missing. The chimp pseudogene is missing it, too. "The same mistakes in the same gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. "That strong evidence from the pseudogene points well beyond the ancestry of humans. Despite some remaining puzzles, [11] there's no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives." (p. 71-72) [10] Chang, L.Y., and Slightom, J.L 1984. Isolation and nucleotide sequence analysis of the beta-type globin pseudogene from human, gorilla and chimpanzee. J. Mol. Biol. 180:767-84. [11] Bapteste, E., Susko, E., Leigh, J., MacLeod, D., Charlebois, R.L., and Doolittle, W.F. 2005. Do orthologous gene phylogenies really support treethinking? BMC Evol. Biol. 5:33.

It is the claim that evolution and only evolution can explain such evidences. It is the equivalent of what is known as an IF-AND-ONLY-IF claim.

In his book The Making of the Fittest, Sean Carroll writes “the degree of similarity in DNA is an index of the [evolutionary] relatedness of species.” [98] This can only make sense if we first assume evolution is true. But Carroll's book is a defense of evolution, intended to demonstrate that the theory is true without first assuming it is true. He seeks to prove evolution is true, but he begins with evolutionary reasoning and interpretations. That is circular reasoning. Unfortunately such circular reasoning is a common motif in the evolution genre.

Descartes’s approach was found to be faulty, but his quest for objective knowledge was taken up by many later thinkers. In the eighteenth century . . . David Hume used another dubious set of proofs to argue that miracles are impossible. Descartes’s theism contrasts with Hume’s skepticism, but for our purposes the similarity in their approaches is more important. Both Descartes and Hume believed that logical argument could produce ultimate truths, and not surprisingly both found truths that were remarkably similar to their own personal beliefs. Descartes the theist found God, and Hume the skeptic found materialism.

"The phrase wasn't removed because the phrase is part of evolutionary theory. Indeed, in Miller's own writings, more recent than the textbook (ie, *Finding Darwin's God*) he hammers this point home repeatedly. Now, on the hotseat he plays dumb"

On the issue of guidance or direction in evolution: There are two senses in which "guided" is used, and the ID advocates confuse and obscure the differences. One sense is that of internal direction from within the natural biological system. This would be like the vitalism of the last century in which organisms were impelled toward a goal by their own efforts, or by some inward force. Internal vitalistic forces have been rejected by modern science. However, and this is critical, modern science does not and indeed cannot reject supernatural or divine guidance of the evolutionary process. Science simply has no way to study or test for such divine action. ID advocates often take statements from the scientific community that refer to guidance in the first sense and imply that they are rejecting divine guidance. I see evolution as an expression of God's creative action and part of God's purpose and will. I believe that this is the same view held by Ken Miller. Keith

No this is not Miller's view, as he makes clear in *Finding Darwin's God*.

"Evolutionary clowns"? Hmmmm.... Aren't these people always comoplaining that namecaling means you have no argument?

Or is this just projection?

I read it thus:

"not expected" != "not possible".

If we see X, it supports Y.

If Y is not true, we do not expect to see X.

But we might see X anyway, for some other reason.

The closest I can come to a parsing of Hunter's "argument" is that he's trying to special-plead his way out of accepting that the evidence contradicts his dogma. IMNSHO, the entirety of Presuppositionalism is a nothing but a massive case of special pleading. Evidence means whatever we say it means (and the irony of having the fundamentalists crawl epistemologically into bed with the post-modernists amuses me no end).

“More compelling evidence for the shared ancestry of humans and other primates comes from their hemoglobin — not just their working hemoglobin, but a broken hemoglobin gene, too. [10] In one region of our genomes humans have five genes for proteins that act at various stages of development (from embryo through adult) as the second (betalike) chain of hemoglobin. This includes the gene for the beta chain itself, two almost identical copies of a gamma chain (which occurs in fetal hemoglobin), and several others. Chimpanzees have the very same genes in the very same order. In the region between the two gamma genes and a gene that works after birth, human DNA contains a broken gene (called a “pseudogene”) that closely resembles a working gene for a beta chain, but has features in its sequence that preclude it from coding successfully for a protein. “Chimp DNA has a very similar pseudogene at the same position. The beginning of the human pseudogene has two particular changes in two nucleotide letters that seems to deactivate the gene. The chimp pseudogene has the exact same changes. A bit further down in the human pseudogene is a deletion mutation, where one particular letter is missing. For technical reasons, the deletion irrevocably messes up the gene’s coding. The very same letter is missing in the chimp gene. Toward the end of the human pseudogene another letter is missing. The chimp pseudogene is missing it, too. “The same mistakes in the same gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It’s hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. “That strong evidence from the pseudogene points well beyond the ancestry of humans. Despite some remaining puzzles, [11] there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” (p. 71-72)

[10] Chang, L.Y., and Slightom, J.L 1984. Isolation and nucleotide sequence analysis of the beta-type globin pseudogene from human, gorilla and chimpanzee. J. Mol. Biol. 180:767-84.

[11] Bapteste, E., Susko, E., Leigh, J., MacLeod, D., Charlebois, R.L., and Doolittle, W.F. 2005. Do orthologous gene phylogenies really support treethinking? BMC Evol. Biol. 5:33.

There is no mention here of any other hypothesis. The evidence is absolutely consistent with what one would expect from descent with modification. It is also absolutely consistent with the nested genetic hierarchy observed for nuclear and mitochondrial DNA, the nested hierarchy observed for SINE insertions and it is absolutely consistent with the fossil recored.

Now, if any creationist wants to put forward another hypothesis that better explains these observations, please feel free to do so. Of course, you will also have to explain why an intelligent designer put broken genes into human and chimp genomes and why the mistakes were copied and why they were copied only into certain species and why the pattern observed is consistent with all of the other data supporting descent with modification. If and only if you can explain all of this with another hypothesis of more explanatory and predictive power will any real scientist take you seriously. Until then, it's all just sour grapes and poor logic.

Thanks to Rich for the references.

Nick (Matzke) said: So what becomes puzzling is obvious self-contradictions in very short periods of time...

As I stated in another thread I had just finished reading Agassiz's Essay on Classification. One rather striking feature of that essay is that while talking very much about how the pattern of nature reveals the Creator's plan (which coincidently included multiple creation events [where is that in Genesis?] of distinct species many of which are earlier versions of the present modern form) it is never used in any predictive fashion that I could note. It's only use seemed to be as a post hoc description tool. In other words even before the Origin came out it already looked pretty dead as a research program.

Incidentally, the creationist-as-debater hypothesis also explains why they don't render a fair assessment of "only" statements in science as meaning "its the only explanation I can think of" rather than "its the only formally possible explanation." They may comprehend that you meant the former, but because the goal is simply to win the argument - not explain anything - they're going to do what they can to shift the debate to the latter. That's how you win the argument, even if in terms of science it actually muddles the discussion.

DS said: ...With regards to shared errors in pseudogenes, the point is that the observed pattern cannot be explained by shared mechanisms or common design or any type of intelligent design. ...

Andrew said: I'm actually with Cornelius on this one, at least for logical consistency. A if and only if B requires A ==> B and B ==> A. He says science should only make A ==> B statements (if evolution, then orderly change). The article he complains about says !A ==> !B (if !evolution, then !orderly change). This is logically equivalent to B ==> A (orderly change implies evolution), and is the wrong way around. Combine this with A ==> B (if evolution, then orderly change), and we have (evolution iff orderly change).

Here's the whole chapter, by the way.

386sx said: If evolution is correct, then you would expect the fossils to progress according to their ages. If evolution is false, then you wouldn't expect that to happen.

In all these respects the species of large genera present a strong analogy with varieties. And we can clearly understand these analogies, if species once existed as varieties, and thus originated; whereas, these analogies are utterly inexplicable if species are independent creations.

I think this has a very simple explanation: creationists like Hunter aren’t functioning as scientists, with the primary goal of explaining phenomena. They are functioning as rhetoricians or lawyers with the primary goal of winning arguments.

If the theory of evolution is not correct, on the other hand, then such orderly change is not expected.

I suspect that teaching at Biola involves apologetics (which rely heavily on propositional logic.)

Scientific evidence is a conjunction of if-then arguments. As one compiles more and more of these, arguments increase in strength. If organisms are related then they will share DNA sequence similarity. If changes in DNA sequences are mutations then they will obey the probabilistic laws of (dilute) chemical reactions. If mutations are under natural selection then nonsynonymous mutations will be rarer than synonymous. If evolution is true then recently evolved species should be more similar than distantly evolved species. If evolution is true then there should be multiple mutagenic routes to the same phenotype. If you're at all creative you can come up with many more.

harold said: Eric said -

I think this has a very simple explanation: creationists like Hunter aren’t functioning as scientists, with the primary goal of explaining phenomena. They are functioning as rhetoricians or lawyers with the primary goal of winning arguments.

This is exactly right, with a major caveat that we remove "lawyers". I know the legal profession takes a lot of heat, but it does recognize strong ethical principles and limitations.

Integrity: An NFL member obeys the highest ethical standards and adheres to the rules of the League. NFL members recognize that integrity is central to earning the trust, respect, and support of one's peers. Integrity encompasses the highest regard for honesty, civility, justice, and fairness.

Gingerbaker said: Mike Elzinga said: "...what I took away from Hunter’s rant was not so much his picking at logic as it was his apparent rage that intelligent design was not even thought of as an alternative..." You know what would be amusing? Somebody in the know should do an analysis of Hunter's bugaboos, say, the gross organizational structure of pseudogenes, or the fossil record, etc and then mathematically correlate it the given propensities of various gods. The Sumerian goddess Inanna, for example, was associated with trees, rain, storms, chaos. Compare with Yahweh, who will come up short. Demonstrate by Hunter's own criteria that the "Designer" was likely to be Sumerian. Or perhaps Zoroastrian... I wonder what he might then have to say about "apologetic" scientists and their 'religious dogma'. :D

Amazing what a little sunlight does.

harold said: This is exactly right, with a major caveat that we remove "lawyers". I know the legal profession takes a lot of heat, but it does recognize strong ethical principles and limitations.

Mike Elzinga said: One of Hunter’s funniest rants was this one against Dan Styer’s paper in the American Journal of Physics.

eric said:

Mike Elzinga said: One of Hunter’s funniest rants was this one against Dan Styer’s paper in the American Journal of Physics.

No way. Nothing beats his comparison of thylacines to wolves in terms of ROFL stupid. Wesley Elsberry covered it nicely. (And given the author of this thread, its worth pointing out that Nick provided the scanned documents referred to by Dr. Elsberry.)

If And Only If Cornelius Hunter explains a sufficiently sound methodology for comparing the expected results of Design and evolution shall I take his objections about testing evolutionary hypotheses seriously.

Wheels said: If And Only If Cornelius Hunter explains a sufficiently sound methodology for comparing the expected results of Design and evolution shall I take his objections about testing evolutionary hypotheses seriously.

Regarding his original post, Cornelius posted
this comment on the UD site.

It's like he's living in Bizarro World (where evidence is referred to as "obfuscation").

Exactly. This is not a new argument - Darwin used it 150 years ago. Origin of Species has a bunch of places where Darwin argues ‘you wouldn’t expect to see this pattern if species were individually created.’

harold said: In science its the researcher's job to lay out both the pros and cons of the research honestly.

Dear Sir A sermon of Dr. Pusey’s recently published with the addition of certain notes, takes the form of an attack on the Theory of Evolution.[f2] I have written to Dr. Pusey to inform him of several very important errors he has made in his definition of the theory which he does not appear to understand. But there are several points which I should also like to deny, and on these I have taken the liberty to write to you, especially since the sermon has made a great impression on undergraduates, & must have given them an entirely wrong view of the case. First Dr. Pusey says, that you wrote the “origin of species” `with a Quasi Theological not with a scientific object“, namely `to overthrow the dogma of separate creations’. Whence he argues that you were biassed when you wrote it & the result is therefore invalid. Second That the ”transformation theory“ is a special object of your interest because it dispenses with the intervention of a personal creator. Third, that your object was to establish a First cause introduced ”to save us from the conception of eternity of matter, but who, after his creation looks on unconcerned upon the result of his act upon his creatures“, and that this is the essence of Darwinism. These are the three things I have ventured to ask you about, all the important parts in the rest I have answered to my satisfaction, if not to his. But these I could not directly answer as they seem to be based on ideas of your meaning rather than on actual facts. If you should kindly answer this letter, would you say if I might publish in the ”Undergraduates journal“, your answer, as I hold it important that erroneous notions of this theory should not be promulgated. Trusting that you will pardon my troubling you with this communication I remain | Yours truly | Henry N. Ridley | — Footnotes f1 Edward Bouverie Pusey’s sermon Un-science, not science, adverse to faith was preached by Henry Parry Liddon on EBP’s behalf on 3 November 1878 at the University of Oxford (Pusey 1878). Although the sermon was then printed in the Undergraduate’s Journal on 7 November 1878, the annotated edition HNR refers to was not published until at least 13 November 1878 (Guardian (London), 1878, p. 1572). CD’s reply to HNR is dated 28 November 1878. f2 Also see letter to John Brodie Innes, 27 November 1878.

Dear Sir, I just skimmed through Dr Pusey’s sermon as published in the Guardian, but it did not seem to me worthy of any attention.[f1] As I have never answered criticisms excepting those made by scientific men I am not willing that this letter should be published; but I have no objection to your saying that you sent me the three questions, & that I answered that Dr Pusey was mistaken in imagining that I wrote the Origin with any relation whatever to Theology. I should have thought that this would have been evident to anyone who has taken the trouble to read the book, more especially as in the opening lines of the Introduction I specify how the subject arose in my mind.[f2] This answer disposes of your two other questions; but I may add that many years ago when I was collecting facts for the Origin, my belief in what is called a personal God was as firm as that of Dr Pusey himself, & as to the eternity of matter I have never troubled myself about such insoluble questions.— Dr Pusey’s attack will be as powerless to retard by a day the belief in evolution as were the virulent attacks made by divines fifty years ago against Geology, & the still older ones of the Catholic church against Galileo, for the public is wise enough always to follow scientific men when they agree on any subject; & now there is almost complete unanimity amongst Biologists about Evolution, tho’ there is still considerable difference as to the means, such as how far natural selection has acted & how far external conditions, or whether there exists some mysterious innate tendency to perfectibility I remain dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Charles Darwin Footnotes f1 Pusey’s sermon was reprinted in the London Guardian edition of 20 November 1878 as it had appeared in the Undergraduate’s Journal edition of 7 November 1878; that is, without the notes in which Pusey criticised CD in detail. See letters from H. N. Ridley, [13-28] November 1878, and J. B. Innes, 27 November 1878. f2 HNR quoted this part of CD’s reply in a letter to the Undergraduate’s Journal (Undergraduate’s Journal, 5 December 1878, p. 144).

My dear Innes Many thanks for your most kind letter & for sending me Dr Pusey’s[f2] sermon, which I have been glad to see, but I am a little disappointed in it, as I expected more vigour & less verbiage.— I hardly see how religion & science can be kept as distinct as he desires, as geology has to to treat of the history of the Earth & Biology that of man.— But I most wholly agree with you that there is no reason why the disciples of either school should attack each other with bitterness, though each upholding strictly their beliefs. You, I am sure, have always practically acted in this manner in your conduct towards me & I do not doubt to all others. Nor can I remember that I have ever published a word directly against religion or the clergy. But if you were to read a little pamphlet which I received a couple of days ago by a clergyman, you would laugh & admit that I had some excuse for bitterness; after abusing me for 2 or 3 pages in language sufficiently plain & emphatic to have satisfied any reasonable man, he sums up by saying that he has vainly searched the English language to find terms to express his contempt of me & all Darwinians. We have just returned from a week in London, where we went as I wanted rest, but I am now tired, so will write no more. I suppose that the misery from that wicked Glasgow bank is something inconceivably great in Scotland.[f3] Believe me | My dear Innes | Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin Footnotes f1 See letter from H. N. Ridley, [13-28] November 1878. f2 Edward Bouverie Pusey. f3 The Glasgow City Bank had recently failed. It is possible that CD read of this on p. 5 of the Manchester Guardian, 5 November 1878, which is on the reverse of an article about Pusey’s sermon.

Dear Darwin, I want to thank you for your most kind letter, not to inflict on you the smallest call to reply to what I say, but only to express my own idea on the subject Pusey has spoken of. Lately I was at our Church Congress at Dundee, where a Bishop and some Parsons were assembled as guests in a hospitable house, and one evening when the subject was introduced I said “I have the pleasure of the intimate friendship of one of the very first Naturalists in Europe. He is a most accurate observer, and never states anything as a fact which he has not most thoroughly investigated. He is a man of the most perfect moral character, and his scrupulous regard for the strictest truth is above that of almost all men I know. I am quite persuaded that if on any morning he met with a fact which would clearly contradict one of his cherished theories he would not let the sun set before he made it known. I never saw a word in his writings which was an attack on Religion. He follows his own course as a Naturalist and leaves Moses to take care of himself”. This in substance is what I said then and on other occasions and I believe it is both true, and the proper way in which Scientific studies should be pursued. I have always (and I must say I am indebted to you for much confirmation of the view) held, as Pusey says now, that Science and Religion should go on separately, and not contest in any way. Those who believe firmly and unhesitatingly, as I hope I do myself, that the teaching of the Church, of which her Book, the Bible, is only a chief part, is infalibly true, need not disturb them selves about any effect which real discoveries in Science may have on Catholic truth. I hold that a Theologian reads the Book of Revelation forward from our Saviour to this time, and a Naturalist the Book of Nature backward from one discovery to another, as would be the case with the same book in Hebrew and in Greek. That, whatever may appear at the time, the lines, coming from the same source, can never cross, and will in the end be seen to have been parallel. In something of this way, (though I very feebly express it.) it seems to me that all might go on harmoniously, and to the benefit of all. I have certainly seen some very nasty and needless utterances from Naturalists in England, and much more in Germany; but I must confess with sorrow that most of the unwise and violent attacks have come from the Theological side, to the great injury of the cause they were designed to promote. I did not mean to write so much when I began. My design was tell you how I thought the two things could be profitably kept from jostling. It looks as if the abstract of the discourse might be. How nicely things would go on if other folk were like Darwin and Brodie Innes! Very soothing reflection. However it has done me no harm to write and I hope will do you none. Our kindest regards, and we wish you all a happy Christmas Believe me Dear Darwin | Faithfully Yours | J Brodie Innes

Rich Blinne said: Everybody hold the thought above while I set up the context of a tale of two pastors and Charles Darwin. As we go along, notice the modern parallels with this story.

harold said: The creationist has an authoritarian take on reality. His or her goal is solely to promote his or her arbitrarily chosen claims. It's hard for scientific or skeptical people to understand this mind set, even though it is a very common one. Creationists literally don't care at all about the evidence. They are determined to say or do anything to promote their position.

MrG said:

Rich Blinne said: Everybody hold the thought above while I set up the context of a tale of two pastors and Charles Darwin. As we go along, notice the modern parallels with this story.

Oh! What a pleasure, RB. Those terribly, terribly, terribly polite Victorians. One can only imagine what a monster they thought Thomas Huxley was.

My dear Sir I thank you much for your two notes & am quite sorry that you shd. have had the trouble of writing two.— This note requires no answer & can give no trouble.— As Leydig seemed a puzzler to reach, I have sent a copy to Kolliker instead of to him, & to C. Vogt, & now all my copies are gone, & once again I thank you for your very valuable assistance. I write now chiefly to say that if time & inclination leads you to look at any Balanus, do pray look at cementing apparatus, I am sure you wd. find it curious & worth looking at, & I shd. much like some naturalist to see it. If you are so inclined do not look at the coast Bal. balanoides, but a (young) white Balanus Bal. crenatus common on crabs & shells from deepish water: remove shell, leaving [c.] basis attached, & then dissolve it with its calcareous support in weak acid, then look with compound microscope & see antennæ of pupa, wonderful cement-glands & cement-ducts. If you do anything more, do look at my acoustic vesicle,f3 eyes & nervous system in the large Bal. perforatus so common at Tenby. I have only casually looked at these parts in these species.— My dear Sir | Pray believe me | Yours sincerely | C. Darwin Pray give to whomever you like, the second copy of my Book which you have.— If you stumble on Scalpellum vulgare do look at the Comp. Males.—

THH was a loyal disciple of CD and so the relationship between them was very affectionate, but I have heard Huxley's occasional jabs at the clergy (if by no means always unprovoked) were generally regarded as shocking.

The letter is amusing, however, since it has a real tone of collaboration: "Hey check THIS out! It's REALLY cool! Later bro!"

Cornelius is hilarious. He's unique amongst ID proponents in that he rarely talks about intelligent design or even mentions it - his beef is with evolutionary biology, and he's not afraid to let it be known. Very strange.

Apart from his blog, Darwin's God, his other website, Darwin's Predictions (http://www.darwinspredictions.com/), is also worth a chuckle. I began to deconstruct each claim he makes there a while ago, and I've yet to finish it. Someday, someday...

MrG said: THH was a loyal disciple of CD and so the relationship between them was very affectionate, but I have heard Huxley's occasional jabs at the clergy (if by no means always unprovoked) were generally regarded as shocking. The letter is amusing, however, since it has a real tone of collaboration: "Hey check THIS out! It's REALLY cool! Later bro!"

... His [Wilberforce's] words are quite misquoted by you (which your father refuted). They did not appear vulgar, nor insolent nor personal, but flippant. He had been talking of the perpetuity of species in birds: and then denying a fortiori the derivation of the species Man from Ape, he rhetorically invoked the help of feeling: and said (I swear to the sense and the form of the sentence, if not to the words) `If anyone were to be willing to trace his descent through an ape as his grandfather, would he be willing to trace his descent similarly on the side of his grandmother.' It was (you see) the arousing the antipathy about degrading women to the Quadrumana. It was not to the point, but it was the purpose. It did not sound insolent, but unscientific and unworthy of the zoological argument which he had been sustaining. It was a (bathos). Your father's reply, (Remember, he did not use the word `prostituting his abilities', but (I believe) `degrading'. But I will swear to the absence of the former low word. (Also equivocal was not used). ), showed that there was a vulgarity as well as a folly in the Bishop's words; and the impression distinctly was, that the Bishop's party as they left the room, felt abashed; and recognised that the Bishop had forgotten to behave like a gentleman. The victory of your father, was not the ironical dexterity shown by him, but the fact that he had got a victory in respect of manners and good breeding. You must remember that the whole audience was made up of gentlefolk, who were not prepared to endorse anything vulgar. The speech which really left its mark scientifically on the meeting, was the short one of Hooker, wherein he said `he considered that Darwin's views were true in the field of Botany; and that he must claim that students should "provisionally accept them as a working hypothesis in the field of the Animal Kingdom"'. I am confident, in the above statements, not only that I have given the true impression, but I can corroborate my quotations of the words used by the exact memory of the late Canon T. S. Evans of Durham, who about twelve years ago, talked over with me, the details of the meeting .... The blank look of Sir B. Brodie to your father's remark, corroborates my view that the insolence and personality of Bishop Wilberforce's remark was not caught by the meeting, until your father remarked it. . . . . . The spiteful narrative which you quote from J. R. Green (the historical writer) is hardly worthy of him! I should say that to fair minds, the intellectual impression left by the discussion was that the Bishop had stated some facts about the perpetuity of Species, but that noone had really contributed any valuable point to the opposite side except Hooker; but that your father had scored a victory over Bishop Wilberforce in the question of good manners

Makes me think of Cliff Clavin on Jeopardy: "Who are three people who have never been in my kitchen?"

so Corn Hunter isn't a super deep level undercover sock puppet?

fross said: so Corn Hunter isn't a super deep level undercover sock puppet?

386sx said:

If the theory of evolution is not correct, on the other hand, then such orderly change is not expected.

"not expected" doesn't sound very much like "if and only if". Maybe that's what Mr. Hunter is so upset about. Nobody ever says what Mr. Hunter says they say, but yet he wants them to say what he wants then to say, and then Jesus doesn't say anything at all. That would probably make me upset too.

Waynef said:

386sx said:

If the theory of evolution is not correct, on the other hand, then such orderly change is not expected.

"not expected" doesn't sound very much like "if and only if". Maybe that's what Mr. Hunter is so upset about. Nobody ever says what Mr. Hunter says they say, but yet he wants them to say what he wants then to say, and then Jesus doesn't say anything at all. That would probably make me upset too.

Now if the author would have said, "If the theory of evolution is not correct, on the other hand, then such orderly change is not expected unless you believe in fairies and magic pixie dust", would that have satiated Mr. Hunter's anger?

BTW I could never decide whether he was YEC or not.

— Michael Roberts

386sx said:

Waynef said:

386sx said:

If the theory of evolution is not correct, on the other hand, then such orderly change is not expected.

"not expected" doesn't sound very much like "if and only if". Maybe that's what Mr. Hunter is so upset about. Nobody ever says what Mr. Hunter says they say, but yet he wants them to say what he wants then to say, and then Jesus doesn't say anything at all. That would probably make me upset too.

Now if the author would have said, "If the theory of evolution is not correct, on the other hand, then such orderly change is not expected unless you believe in fairies and magic pixie dust", would that have satiated Mr. Hunter's anger?

I doubt it. The whole point of the section from which Mr. Hunter was quoting was a hypothetical blind test of lining up fossils according to their ages and what results were expected if evolution were true or not true. If he had a problem with the test then he should have said so. Instead he took one sentence out of context and called everybody "poopyheads" or something. (I forget what it is he called everybody.) So I highly doubt if there is anything anyone can do about Mr. Hunter's frustration. (Frustration rooted in the fact that Jesus never says nothin about anything, and is always invisible, I would guess.)

386sx said: No the article doesn't say that. It was speaking in the context of testing the theory of evolution by using the fossil record and what results would be expected with such a test....

My two cents on this: Cornelius Hunter is just the latest pseudo intellectual peddler of biblical literalism and the like. Given he has some basic philosophical training, however misused, it does took some effort to unpack his nonsense as it is dressed up in serious sounding rhetoric.

That said, reading him getting flamed on his own blog is always good for a bit of schadenfreude.

It is not wise to be creationist and say that "IF-AND-ONLY-IF claims" are impossible.

What is William Dembski's eliminative filter? Filter's end result is "IF and only IF" -claim. It claims it block out every other explanations, known or unknown.

So, please, go and tell that to your profet Dembski first. Then come back.