To : ALL Subj: Biele's authority ARTHUR BIELE to ALL on 091994 00:06 re: TRANSITIONS, PART

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From: LARRY SITES 21 Sep 94 21:27 To : ALL Subj: Biele's authority ARTHUR BIELE to ALL on 09-19-94 00:06 re: TRANSITIONS, PART 6. 1/ AB>As I have posted, [In 1979, Creationist Luther D Sunderland, on behalf of the NYS Board of Regents and the NYS board of Education, was requested to conduct taped interviews Mr. Sunderland explicitly asked each of these officials if they were aware of any transitional forms from fish to amphibians, and in particular,the crossopterygian to Ichthyostega, they each indicated that they were unaware of any confirming evidence for such a transition.] researcher Luther Sunderland, Interviewed top paleontology experts from AB>five of the world's greatest fossil museums. They were Dr. Raup of the AB>Chicago Field Museum; Dr. Niles Eldredge of the New York City Museum of AB>Natural History; Dr. David Pilbeam of, Curator of the Peabody Museum of AB>Natural History at Yale; Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist of AB>the British Museum of Natural History in London, England; and Dr. AB>Fisher of the New York State Museum of Natural History. The Result: AB> "No museum official offered any real fossil evidence that any one of AB> the various invertebrates evolved into vertebrate fish" P. 63 AB> "None of the museum officials could produce any fossil evidence of an AB> intermediate ancestor connecting the amphibians with with fishes." p 6 AB> "None of the five museum officials could offer a single example of a AB> transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the AB> transformation of one basically different type to another." p. 88 AB>Luther Sunderland, 'Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and other Problems', Master AB>Books, 1988. Talk about someone with an agenda, Sunderland is it. Master Books is the old publishing arm of the ICR. Say, since you appear to have read Sunderland's book, does he still mis-represent Patterson's AMNH speech like this: LS> From : Dave Mullenix 03-25-93 03:38 LS> LS> 'Colin Patterson LS> made some statements that taken out of the context of cladistic LS> taxonomy, might sound anti-evolutionary. The Institute for Creation LS> Research published a tract, "Evolution? Prominent Scientist LS> Reconsiders" in 1982, claiming that at the AMNH speech, Patterson LS> "confessed" that he no longer "believed" in evolution. This claim has LS> been widely circulated due to a clandestine tape transcript of the LS> session. This tract by Sunderland is apparently STILL available from the ICR at Impact Reprints, PO Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021 as it is listed as #108 on a recent order list, even though according to the following posts, that is NOT Patterson's position: From : Dave Mullenix 03-25-93 03:38 To : All Subj : Colin Patterson ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I just got the Winter 92 issue of NCSE Reports, the journal of the National Center for Science Education and it has an interesting article that bears on that Colin Patterson quote we were discussing a while ago. It's "Tracking Those Incredible Creationists", a regular column and this issue it's written by Eugenie C. Scott. I quote: 'In Patterson's own words, from a 1982 letter to teacher Steven Binkley, I was asked to talk on "evolutionism and creationism," and knowing the meetings of the group as informal sessions where ideas could be kicked around among specialists, I put a case for difficulties and problems with evolution, specifically in the field of systematics. (Commentary by Scott deleted) I was too naive and foolish to guess what might happen: the talk was taped by a creationist who passed the tape to Luther Sunderland ... Since, in my view, the tape was obtained unethically, I asked Sunderland to stop circulating the transcript, but of course to no effect. There is not much point in my going through the article point by point. I was putting a case for discussion, as I thought off the record _and was speaking only about systematics, a specialized field_. (italics not in original) I do not support the creationist movement in any way, and in particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify school curricula. In short, the article does not fairly represent my views. Scott then goes on: 'So Patterson was tossing around ideas to a group of students and specialists about a specialized subfield, transformed cladistics. The specialized nature of the discussion and the particular philosophical context of the statements were ripe for taking words out of context. Patterson has not "reconsidered" whether evolution has taken place, he is arguing about how to work out relationships between organisms.' ------------------------------------------------------------------------- So eight or nine years ago, Patterson told Sunderland that the quote was out of context, concerned a field other than evolution and that it did not represent Patterson's views on evolution. Yet I purchased an ICR book with this quote in it three years ago at a "Back to Genesis" seminar. Shameful! *************************************************************************** * Message # 5852 Area : 53 BIOGENESIS From : Scott Faust 04-07-93 03:13 To : Steve Geller Subj : Re: Colin Patterson --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As Eugenie Scott explained in the article that Dave was quoting, Patterson adheres to a particular school of taxonomy called "transformed cladistics". I have never really come across a sufficiently detailed account of what this "transformed" cladistics actually is, but my understanding is that these folks hold that the classification of biological organisms should be stripped of any assumptions supplied by evolutionary theory. This, of course, could be easily misinterpreted by our creationist friends: To say that taxonomy should not be -informed- by evolutionary theory, but should instead be based on independent assumptions, is nothing like saying that evolution hasn't occurred, or that evolutionary theory is hogwash. But this is what strikes me as odd... So far as I can tell from the very little I have read about it, "transformed" cladism makes no significant modification to the methodology of cladism. And the cladistic methodology is certainly thoroughgoing evolutionary, in the sense that it is explicitly intended to create classifications that correspond on a one to one basis with phylogenetic branching events. In fact, the system was initially called "phylogenetic systematics," but the name was changed to avoid confusion with a more standard approach called by the same name (even though this other is actually less phylogenetic!). I can't see how it is possible to strip cladism of evolutionary assumptions, unless one does so by means that amount to little more than mere declaration. My guess (admittedly made without adequate background knowledge) is that this "transformed cladism" deal is a tempest in a teapot, concerned more with issues of semantics than genuine substance. However this may be, cladism only works because there are very particular patterns of homology (similarities and dissimilarities among corresponding features of different organisms) which do obtain in nature; and these patterns do obtain because evolution has occurred. Thus, cladism works because evolution has occurred. Patterson's own attempts to decouple classification from evolution apparently led him to recognize this. The following is from a letter he wrote in response to inquiries from the editor of the _Creation/Evolution Newsletter_ (v5,n5 Sept-Oct 1985): [Luther Sunderland, the creationist who taped and transcribed Patterson's talk, said...] "He [Patterson] changed his position [to that of an "anti-evolutionist"] because of the dramatic fossil evidence" -- rubbish. I got myself tangled because of six months cogitating about homology, the central concept of comparative biology. Five years later, I know of no alternative to common ancestry as an explanation for homology. The efforts I have made to find an alternative convince me that there isn't one. So... It seems fairly clear to me also that Patterson's describing himself as a "non-evolutionist" or even an "anti-evolutionist," are to be understood in terms of the approach that he was advocating toward taxonomy. Its very clear that he was never opposed to evolutionary theory, but only to its supposedly undesirable intrusions into the task of classifying living organisms. Anyway, I can understand how this all might be misinterpreted by a layperson, and particularly by a creationist. ************************************************************************ From: PHIL NICHOLLS To: ANDREW CUMMINS Subj: Re: Quotes Area: BIOGENESIS Date: 93/09/02 This is in response to your recent posting about Colin Patterson and his so-called "anti-evolution" statements. Last year on GENIE I got involved in a debate with someone who made this claim. I decided that the best way to approach this was to go straight to the horses mouth, so to speak. I placed a long distance call to the British Museum of Natural History and asked to speak with Dr. Patterson. Unfortunately, Dr. Patterson was vacationing at the time of my call. I did talk with one of his assistants, whose name escapes me at present. I was told that these often quoted remarks were a constant source of irritation to Dr. Patterson and that it was perhaps best that I hadn't been able to reach him. Dr. Patterson made those remarks IN ORDER TO GET HIS AUDIENCE TO THINK ABOUT EVOLUTION AND WHAT IT MEANS AND NOT JUST RECITE WHAT THEY HAD BEEN TAUGHT. It is a tactic that many good teachers take in order to get students to think critically. Dr. Patterson's assistant assured me that Dr. Patterson was definitely not an anti-evolutionist, that he was in fact in the midst of editing a new book on evolutionary biology and cladistics. Phil Nicholls ---end of reposts Some of these posters are still here maybe they have more to say about Sunderland. Also here is another snippet of his work: Area # 53 BIOGENESIS 03-31-94 21:32 Message # 258 From : SCOTT FAUST To : BERNIE WILT Subj : Origin of races! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- By Jim Lippard: Tom McIver, an anthropologist who has written several articles for _Creation/Evolution_, _NCSE Reports_, and the _Skeptical Inquirer_, as well as the book _Anti-Evolution: An Annotated Bibliography_, has a book on creationism that will be published by the Univ. of California Press. Chapter 15 of the book is titled "Creationism and Racism," and the history of connections between creationism and racism. A shorter version of the chapter will be published in a future issue of _Skeptic_ magazine (probably the issue after next, i.e., vol. 2, no. 4). Anyway, I wanted to share some of it here. McIver begins with a bunch of quotes from creationists who maintain that racism comes from belief in evolution--Henry Morris, Ken Ham, Bert Thompson, Malcolm Bowden, etc.--it's a pretty long list. This part really caught my eye, though: "Evolution and racism are the same thing," declares Jerry Bergman (McIver 1990:21; see Bergman's "Evolution and the Development of Nazi Race Policy" in _Bible-Science Newsletter_ [1988] and articles in _Creation Research Society Quarterly_ [1980], _CSSHQ_ [1986], and _Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal_ [1991, 1992]).[2] [2] Bergman has been featured in many creationist publications for his complaint that he was denied tenure and dismissed from Bowling Green State University "solely because of my beliefs and publications in the area of creationism"; a cover story, for instance, in the Creation Science Legal Defense Fund's magazine _Creation_ ("The Jerry Bergman Story," 1984). In Bergman's _The Criterion_ (preface by Wendell Bird, foreword by John Eidsmoe), Luther Sunderland said Bergman was fired "solely" because of his religious beliefs--his creationism (1984:64). But in a signed letter published in David Duke's National Association of White People newsletter, Bergman stated that "reverse [racial] discrimination was clearly part of the decision"--i.e., that it was *not* solely religious discrimination (Bergman 1985:2). ---end of second repost I have not personally checked these, nor do I have the complete references. I am however quite willing to write Jim Lippard for answers to any questions you might have. Now you tell me, who is misrepresenting what? Peace, Larry ___ * WR # 398 * Watch out for your paradigm...shift happens. --- FMail/386 0.98a * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212)

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank