APOLOGETICS PRESS
(LETTERHEAD)
November 11, 1992
Dear Robert:
Your letter of November 7 has just arrived. I am about to leave twon
for a speaking engagement in Kentucky, and wanted to try and get this
brief reply in the mail to you prior to my departure. Before
addressing the "meat" of your letter, I would like to address what I
would like to call some "peripheral" issues.
First, it is clearly apparent that we are going to have to agree to
disagree. I am hardly surprised that my letter of November 2 was
disappointing to you, because of your predisposition to support an
evolutionary based cosmogony. Since I am a creationist and since my
letter supported creation, I should be rather shocked if you weren't
disappointed with what I had to say. I hardly expected you to agree
with me, because in your letter you made your position quite clear.
However, the manner in which you completely disregarded what I had to
say is unnerving. In your "response" (I put it in quotations marks
because I don't believe it qualifies as a response), you never once
dealt with my point as to how a true whole can be composed of false
parts. What did you suggest? You said that Patterson "falsified a
prediction," and then you added - "(A prediction not demanded by the
general theory but made by men accepting the theory)." Oh come now -
is this the best you can do to answer my argument? Of course it's
demanded by the general theory! That was Dr. Patterson's entire
point. And, pardon me for saying so, but I do think he would know
that better than you, since he was the one with the data, and since he
knew their obvious implications - implications which, in fact,
formed the whole basis of his lectures to three august scientific
groups during his visit to this country eleven years ago this month.
Nor did you deal with my answer (paragraph six, page of of my original
letter) to your question about the falsifiability of evolution. With
all due respect, I answered each and every question you asked, and did
so succinctly. I even provided you with additional research materials
so you could increase your knowledge on the things about which you
were inquiring. Apparently, my efforts were to no avail. You simply
ignored what I said, and acted as if I had not answered your
questions. I have found this to be not an uncommon ploy among
evolutionists with whom I have corresponded. When you answer their
arguments, they skirt the issues and act like no adequate response was
made. I regret that you chose to follow suit.
Second, Robert, you are certainly and "eager beaver" in offering to go
around making "corrections" for others. Before you make that a
full-time business, however, I think you would do well to get the
facts straight first. Let me explain.
You suggest that you will be happy to publicly apologize for me
because I answered one of your questions incorrectly at McLoud. The
question to which you refer was about whether "mainline
churches" were involved in the suit against the State of Arkansas
during the 1981 trial over Act 590. I stated in my answer, that there
were religious organizations involved in the lawsuit, and even
mentioned the Unitarians specifically. Now, notice how you document
the "fact" that "mainline churches" were involved in the lawsuit. You
send me a photocopy of information on the McLean v. Arkansas Board of
Education trial. The photocopy lists two broad groups which joined
as plaintiffs: individuals, and religious organizations. Even though
you underlined them on the photocopy you sent me, individuals
obviously do not count, because they are not "mainline churches." And
as everyone acknowledges, an individual's association with, or
membership in, an organization does not automatically give hime the
right to go around touting himself as a recognized representative of
the entire organization. Nor does his membership suggest that he
may then speak for the whole. Why - knowing this - did you so heavily
emphasize the individuals listed. They have absolutely nothing to do
with the point you were trying to make.
Look at the names of the religious organizations, however, which you
offered as support for your view. The article says: "Among the
organizational plaintiffs are the American Jewish Congress,
the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the American Jewish
Committee, the Arkansas Educations Association, the National
Association of Biology Teachers and the National Coalition
for Public Education and Religious Liberty." Now, Robert, you tell me
- where in that list do you find any "mainline churches"? Where is
the Methodist Church, or the Southern Baptist Convention, or the
Lutheran Missouri Synod, or the. . . Well, you see the point. Are
you attempting to suggest that the American Jewish Congress and the
Union of American Hebrew congregations represent "mainline churches"
in America? If this is the best you have in attempting to make a
case, while simultaneiously trying to prove me wrong, please forego
any public or private apology on my behalf, will you? These are
hardly "mainline" - and Jews/Hebrews don't even have "churches".
Further, isn't this the real point you were attempting to make - that
religious groups (as opposed to out-and-out evolutionists) supported
Act 590? You and I both know that they did, and I admitted such in my
lecture. Where is the "error" Robert? Further, what is the point?
Did the ACLU instigate the suit as I said? Indeed. Did religious
groups join as plaintiffs? Yes. Robert, please - don't major in
minors, OK?
I have always affirmed, and will continue to affirm, that evolution is
not strictly a matter of science. Science does not deal with either
origins or destinies. Those fall far beyond the limitations of the
scientific method. Furthermore, as you and I both know, science uses
induction, and nothing is ever proven apodictically using any method
which employs induction. That is not to say that science is unable to
offer anything of value to the discussion; certainly, it may do so.
But since evolution is concerned, above all, with origins (that is
what the evolutionary cosmogony is all about), evolution does not fall
within the purview of science, strictly speaking. All of this, and
more, makes me defend the conclusion that evolution is a philosophical
issue. And, it will come as no great surprise to you for me to
also affirm that, in my estimation, it is the worse kind of
pseudo-science. I'll not belabor this point, because you and I shall
never agree on it.
I answered your question - "Is evolution falsifiable?" - in my
November 2 letter in as straightforward a manner as I knew how. I was
not then, nore is it now, my intention to play word games with you. I
am being as forthright as I can when I say that, no, evolution is not
falsifiable - in the sense that no matter what data come down the
pike, they will be somehow magically assimilated into the theory to
allow its continued acceptance. I dealt with this very
issue quite pointedly in my first letter (paragraph 6, pages 1-2).
Your own evolutionary colleagues have championed such a view, and
their supporting comments are in the literature at practically every
turn. But yes, evolution is falsifiable in the sense that many of the
predictions made by the general theory can be (and have been - as in
the case of the data Dr. Patterson employed in his lectures) proven
false. Dr. Michael Denton, in his classic work, Evolution: A Theory
in Crisis, has provided more than ample evidence to substantiate this
fact once and for all. Dr. Francis Hitching, in his book, The Neck of
the Giraffe, did likewise. And I mention these two because they are
evolutionists, not creationists. Others could be mentioned as well
(e.g., Darwin Retried, by Harvard-trained lawyer Norman MacBeth).
Here's how this little scenario works, in case you aren't aware. When
Dr. Patterson released the data - data with were completely at odds
with evolutionary theory and predictions - one would think that
proponenets of the theory would simply admit that the theory had
failed, and go about their business. Not so. Evolutionists rushed to
offer explanation after explanation as to why, even though the data
could not be assimilated into the theory, they should be
assimilated into the theory. I call it "evolution-speak". Articles
in the journal Creation/Evolution were among the worst at this
charade. This is what I mean when I say that evolution is, and is
not, falsifiable. The data don't fit: thus it is falsified. But its
proponents have become so adept at forcing the data to fit, that for
all practical purposes evolution is unfalsifiable. Thus, there is no
contradiction involved when someone says that evolution is, and is
not, falsifiable. One has to define how the terms are being used. If
I say, "Robert is rich," and "Robert is poor," that does not
automatically imply a contradiction. Robert may be rich monetarily,
but poor spiritually. And so on. The same is true of evolution's
falsifiability.
Once again, I hope this will settle the matter - realizing, of course,
that I am likely being naïve in that hope. But, as you stated in your
letter, you do not intend to pursue this matter further. Nor do I.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Bert Thompson
|