Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Rick's exposition on Colin Patterson!

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    Terry W. Benton, http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com , has put on yet again another ape act and try to interview Colin Patterson. See his message
    Message 1 of 12 , Apr 5, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Terry W. Benton,

      http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com ,

      has put on yet again another "ape" act and try to interview Colin Patterson. See his message following my name below.

      Colin, what was that you had to say to Terry W. Benton about fossils?

      Colin Patterson:

      > "In several animal and plant groups
      > enough fossils are known to bridge
      > the wide gaps between existing
      > types...

      > There are many other examples of
      > fossil 'missing links', such as
      > Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird
      > which links birds with dinosaurs,
      > or Ichthyostega and Acanthostega,
      > late Devonian amphibians which link
      > land vertebrates and the extinct
      > (having internal nostrils) fishes.

      > But there are still great gaps in the
      > fossil record...

      > Perhaps the simplest explanation
      > is that in many cases we do not
      > yet know what to look for, or how
      > to recognize it if we found it."

      >> pages 108, 109

      And, Colin, what about Terry's creation story?

      Colin Patterson:

      > "The belief that all organisms are
      > related by descent and have
      > diverged through a natural,
      > historical process has only one
      > main competitor, creation theory,
      > though there are different stories
      > of how the Creator went about His
      > work.

      > All creation theories are purely
      > metaphysical.

      > At one extreme there is the
      > fundamentalist view that apparent
      > evidence for evolution, such as
      > fossils, was built into the newly
      > created rocks to tempt us or test
      > our faith.

      > At the other extreme is the person
      > to whom evidence of evolution only
      > pushes the activity of the Creator
      > further and further into the past.

      > Both of these modifications of the
      > original creation myths are typical
      > evasive moves, avoiding
      > refutation or confrontation by
      > modifying the original theory, or
      > erecting subsidiary theories
      > around it."

      >> page 118

      Robert Baty

      --------------Terry's message--------------

      From: Terry W. Benton
      Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2009 1:24 PM
      To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com

      Subject: Re: Colin Patterson's 1981 Speech...fuller context confirms m...

      So, what does all this prove about Patterson?

      All I can get from this is that he was a dufus that didn't know one thing about evolution, knew there was no fossil evidence for evolution, but was certain it happened anyway.

      So, Patterson:
      I am certain of evolution of all creatures from a common ancestor.

      Terry: Can you tell me the ancestors of the bat?

      Well, ugh, ugh....

      TB: How did the pre-bat-creature develop wings and radar?

      Well, ugh, ugh...

      TB: Is there an in-between creature that has half-wings and an imprecise radar sensor?

      Well, ugh, ugh....

      TB: Is there any evidence in the fossil record of the progression of one creature into becoming a bat?

      Well, no, but...

      TB: But even though you have no evidence of such an evolution, you think it is as positively confirmed as ANY historical science?

      Well, I said that when I was under the gun. But,..

      TB: So, why are there no transitional fossils in your book?

      Well, if I had known of any I would have included them.

      TB: So, without any real evidence, you think that evolution is as confirmed as any historical science?

      Well, if you will promise not to tell, it is a trade secret among Paleontologists that there is not one shred of evidence we can use to prove that general evolution is true.

      TB: Well, what will you be saying when the other guys are questioning your belief in the fact of evolution?

      Patterson: Well, in that case, I will be telling them what they want to hear. I've got my job to consider, you know.

      Terry W. Benton

      --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@... wrote:
      > Robert left out this one:
      > Pi (asking Dr. Patterson his opinion of YEC):
      > Dr. Patterson, what do you think of Young Earth Creationism as an
      > alternative explanation to evolution?
      > Patterson:
      > > I am no longer certain that natural
      > > selection is the COMPLETE <emphasis Pi's> explanation,.....
      > >creationists lack scientific
      > > research or evidence to support
      > > such theories as a young earth
      > > (10,000 years old), a world-wide
      > > flood (Noah's) and separate
      > > ancestry for humans and apes
      > Pi:
      > And what of all those statements by creationists citing you (and others) as
      > showing "weaknesses" in evolution?
      > Patterson:
      > their common tactic is to attack
      > > evolution by hunting out debate
      > > or dissent among evolutionary
      > > biologists.
      > > When I published the first edition
      > > I was hardly aware of creationists
      > > but, during the 1980's, like many
      > > other biologists I learned that one
      > > should think carefully about
      > > candour in argument (in publications,
      > > lectures or correspondence) in case
      > > one was furnishing creationist
      > > campaigners with ammunition in
      > > the form of "quotable quotes", OFTEN TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT <empahsis Pi's>
      > Pi:
      > Dr. Patterson, if the choice were between evolution and YEC, which do you
      > think is better supported by the evidence?
      > Patterson:
      > >creationists lack scientific
      > > research or evidence to support
      > > such theories as a young earth
      > > (10,000 years old),
      > > "Evolution is a certainty."
      > Pi:
      > I think that settles it. Thank you Dr. Patterson.......
      > In a message dated 4/5/2009 11:39:11 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
      > rlbaty@... writes:
      > DBWillis claims:
      > > Colin Patterson opposes
      > > Neo-Darwinism.
      > Compare that claim with my recent intereview with Colin Patterson:
      > Robert Baty:
      > > Colin, do you consider evolution
      > > a certainty?
      > Colin Patterson:
      > > "Evolution is a certainty."
      > Robert Baty:
      > > How much of a certainty?
      > Colin Patterson:
      > > "I think the idea of common or
      > > shared ancestry and the belief
      > > that all species are related by
      > > descent is now confirmed as
      > > completely as anything can be
      > > in the historical sciences."
      > Robert Baty:
      > > Yeah, sure, but how did it happen?
      > Colin Patterson:
      > > "Neo-Darwinism concerns the
      > > explanation of descent with
      > > modification, and it emphasizes
      > > natural selection."
      > Robert Baty:
      > > You believe in natural selection?
      > Colin Patterson:
      > > Who doesn't!
      > Robert Baty:
      > > Of course! But is natural selection
      > > THE explanation of "descent with
      > > modification"?
      > Colin Patterson:
      > > "I am not certain that natural
      > > selection is the complete
      > > explanation."
      > Robert Baty:
      > > But you are certain about evolution?
      > Colin Patterson:
      > > "Evolution is a certainty."
      > Robert Baty:
      > > So, while being informed of the
      > > certainty of evolution, what is it
      > > that you are ignorant of?
      > Colin Patterson:
      > > "The completeness of neo-Darwinism
      > > as an explanation."
      > Robert Baty:
      > > Aren't we all!
      > > Anything else you wish to add?
      > Colin Patterson:
      > > "The theory of evolution is the
      > > foundation of contemporary
      > > biological science. It unifies
      > > and directs work in all sorts of
      > > specialized fields, from medicine
      > > to geology.
      > > The modern theory is often called
      > > neo-Darwinian: 'Darwinian' because
      > > it uses Darwin's idea of natural
      > > selection, and 'neo' (new) because
      > > it incorporates a theory of heredity
      > > worked out since Darwin's time.
      > > (The outline in my 1999 book) is
      > > amplified, explained and criticized."
      > >> "Evolution", page 1
      > Robert Baty:
      > > OK, let me just get this straight. Are
      > > you saying that evolution is the
      > > certainty and neo-Darwinism as
      > > an explanation is still being worked
      > > out?
      > Colin Patterson:
      > > "Evolution is a certainty. I see common
      > > descent as being as firmly established
      > > as just about anything else in history.
      > > Neo-Darwinism concerns the
      > > explanation.
      > > I am no longer certain that natural
      > > selection is the complete explanation,
      > > and I hope the new edition contains
      > > enough information, and not too
      > > much bias, for readers to understand
      > > the problem and judge the answer
      > > for themselves."
      > Robert Baty:
      > > Thank you for your time and candor,
      > > Colin. We'll try to do just that.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Robert Baty
      ... From: w_w_c_l To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009 8:33 PM Subject: Re: Patterson must be a dufus [sic!] ... DB Willis quotes from
      Message 2 of 12 , Apr 5, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        ------------Forwarded Message------------

        From: w_w_c_l
        To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009 8:33 PM

        Subject: Re: Patterson must be a dufus [sic!]

        ? --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, DBWILLIS@... wrote:

        > DW here
        > You can take Rick's word or C
        > Patterson's as to whether or not the
        > recapitulation theory was still "alive
        > and well."
        > http://www.creationism.org/books/sunderland/DarwinsEnigma/DarwinsEnig\ma_05MoreProblems.htm

        DB Willis quotes from Luther Sunderland's "Darwin's

        >| At the time of the interview, Dr. Patterson must
        >| not have been aware that recapitulation theory
        >| had fallen into disrepute for he said that he
        >| felt comfortable with it and that it was still
        >| alive: "It's one of the few things that I
        >| think has survived. The expectation in Darwin's
        >| time was that all we need do was look at fossils
        >| and they would give us the answers. But it's
        >| true to say they haven't. I do like the ideas of
        >| embryology. That's one of the few things that has
        >| stood the test of time." When asked if he was aware
        >| that the human embryo at no time was anthropoid in
        >| appearance but that the ape embryo appears humanoid
        >| at one point and so was backwards, he replied, "It's
        >| only backwards if you insist that man is the highest
        >| point in the evolutionary tree, which I wouldn't try
        >| to say." Since the interview, Dr. Patterson has
        >| become an anti-evolutionist, so perhaps he has changed
        >| his beliefs about the evidence from embryology. >>

        You are not asking me to take Patterson's word, you are
        asking me to take Sunderland's word.

        Willis, you have got to quit getting your information from
        such places. Sunderland says here that Patterson had become
        an anti-evolutionist. A few paragraphs later he claims that
        Haeckel was convicted of forgery in a German court.

        These aren't just misrepresentations, they are out-and-out
        lies. Why should I believe this guy when he says that
        Patterson must not have realized there was anything wrong
        with recapitulation theory? What, specifically, is the
        "it" that has survived? We don't see Sunderland's actual
        question here so there is no way, from this, of determining
        exactly what he asked. But from what I've heard the
        transcripts of the interviews are available from ERIC and
        they don't quite match up with Sunderland's words in
        "Darwin's Enigma" -- one anti-creationist urges readers to
        obtain the transcripts and see for themselves how the actual
        interviews differ from Sunderland's written accounts of

        Sunderland also claims that chimp embryos go through a
        humanoid stage, but that human embryos don't go through
        an anthropoid stage. What kind of nonsense is that?
        Humans are *the* archetypical anthropoid. But recapitulation
        theory is wrong, remember? *REMEMBER???* Chimp embryos
        don't go through any humanoid stage! Sunderland is lying
        about it -- plain, bald-faced lies -- and you are using
        these lies to try to sully the name of a dead scientist.

        Not only that, Sunderland says in another place, referencing
        "Parents Magazine" rather than primary literature, that the
        human embryo is unmistakably human all the way through its
        development. This is a direct contradiction of his own
        assertion that human embryos don't go through any stage
        where they appear to be "anthropoid".

        (By the way, Willis, you haven't answered the question
        about whether you deny that human embryos have tails...)

        So Patterson published the first edition of his book,
        "Evolution" in 1978. The interview he afforded Sunderland
        was in 1979. He gave his so-called "anti-evolution" talk in
        1981. In 1985 he presented a paper at the Third International
        Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology, held at the
        University of Sussex, titled "Molecules and Morphology in
        Evolution: Conflict or Compromise?"

        Do you honestly believe "The Conspiracy" would have allowed
        Patterson to present at such a prestigious conference if
        he had indeed become an anti-evolutionist?

        Sunderland first published "Darwin's Enigma" in 1984, claiming
        that Patterson had become an anti-evolutionist. This must have
        been quite some news to Patterson, because he evidently had
        no idea he had become an anti-evolutionist. Sunderland published
        a slightly revised version of "Darwin's Enigma" in 1988,
        including material from Michael Denton's 1985 "Theory in Crisis",
        but neglected to correct his misrepresentation of Patterson as
        having become an anti-evolutionist.

        Here is what Patterson wrote in 1988:

        | "Chelvam asserts that 'we are drowning' in evidence
        | against darwinism. He cites nothing beyond the
        | remarks attributed to me. It seems possible that
        | he confuses two theories under the name of darwinism,
        | the general theory of common ancestry or descent with
        | modification, and Darwin's special theory of mechanism,
        | natural selection. If he knows of evidence inconsistent
        | with the general theory of common descent, he should
        | tell us what it is. I know of none."
        (Colin Patterson in a letter to the editor, _Nature_ 332:580, 1988).

        And we have already seen the remarks that Robert provided
        from the preface of Patterson's 2nd edition of "Evolution",

        These are hardly the words of an "anti-evolutionist", Willis.

        > Of course since CP has committed the height of treachery...
        > to admit that the Emperor has no clothes...I suppose
        > it now is necessary for ev's like Rick to assassinate him.

        Why would I want to do that?

        I'm not the one calling Patterson a "dufus" [sic!].

        I'm not the one who claims he was either lying in 1981
        or later.

        I'm not the one who claims he was trying to engage in
        "damage control" afterward.

        Colin Patterson never once "admitted the Emperor has no
        clothes", if you are trying to use that to say that he
        was in doubt that evolution is a fact and that there is
        overwhelming evidence for it. And if that isn't what
        you mean, then how can you say he has committed the
        height of treachery?

        > What would a dufus like CP know anyway about what is or
        > isn't "alive and well" in current ev theory?

        Apparently a lot more than you do. You have tried to
        conflate comparative embryology with Haeckel's discredited
        ideas, you have tried to confuse scientific objections to
        "neo-Darwinism" as being an abandonment of modern evolutionary
        theory, you have *repeatedly* -- "whether through design or
        stupidity I do not know" -- tried to pretend that any
        dispute among scientists as to *how* evolution occurs is
        evidence that evolution does not occur.

        Sorry, but that isn't the way it works.

        If *you* knew what is "alive and well" in current evolutionary
        theory, you would not be ableto , in honesty, make these

        > I think after reading the mumbo jumbo from Rick, it
        > is hard to say WHAT Rick means. Sounds to me that he
        > thinks embryology DOES support ev...but he just wants
        > to distance himself from the Haeckel fiasco. Typical ev...
        > plausible deniability.

        Haeckel's work wasn't exactly a fiasco, despite creationist
        portrayals of him. The "Biogenetic Law" is not a law at all,
        there are too many exceptions to it; but as Gould points out
        in "Ontogeny and Phylogeny" it can never be wholly discredited
        because there is too much evidence for it. While Haeckel's
        work may have sent embryologists in the wrong direction for a
        while and may have given the non-scientific public some
        lingering erroneous conceptions, there is absolutely no
        substance in trying to pretend that Haeckel's drawings,
        "fraud" or not, are evidence against the fact of biological

        Yes, embryology does support evolution, and studies of
        embryological development coupled with genetics have given
        us a lot of information about when (not so much in years
        but step-wise) divergences took place, as well as how
        genes interact during the embryo's development.

        > BTW, Terry....Waytago in finding the evidence that textbooks
        > are still pushing the embryo crap...by WHATEVER name they are
        > calling it these days.

        Yes, textbooks are still pushing the "embryo crap". If you
        don't like it, that's tough. Equating the "embryo crap"
        with Haeckel's ideas, and then pretending that the "embryo
        crap" in the textbooks was discredited long ago but
        evolutionists are knowingly pushing false information in
        order to brainwash kids, is intellectually dishonest.

        And here's something else that is dishonest -- not so much
        intellectually but just plain dishonest -- that we have
        seen again and again, and especially most recently in
        regard to Colin Patterson:

        1. The evolutionist says something.
        2. The creationist misrepresents what was said.
        3. The evolutionist points out the misrepresentation
        and tries to clarify the point being made.
        4. The creationist then accuses the evolutionist of
        engaging in "damage control", of lying, of cover-up.

        That is despicable behavior. Using that technique I
        could make any sort of false claim about you and then
        when you denied it I could just say, "Well, naturally
        DB Willis would deny that. Certainly he wouldn't want
        the truth about that to get out."

        In another post I will try to demonstrate what Patterson
        meant by his "anti-evolutionary" or "non-evolutionary"
        comments and why he suggested that the way the systematists
        of the time were approaching their work could be likened to

        Rick Hartzog
        Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Robert Baty
        ... From: w_w_c_l To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009 8:48 PM Subject: Sunderland agrees with Patterson about the Flood! ... (P. 185,
        Message 3 of 12 , Apr 5, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          --------------Forwarded Message-----------

          From: w_w_c_l
          To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009 8:48 PM

          Subject: Sunderland agrees with Patterson about the Flood!


          > > [C]reationists lack scientific
          > > research or evidence to support...
          > > a world-wide flood (Noah's)...

          | Luther Sunderland, New York's leading creationist, wants
          | his colleagues to be careful when discussing the subject
          | of origins in educational and scientific circles. Among
          | his warnings is this most interesting item ? "Do not talk
          | about a flood because there is no way a single world flood
          | can be derived from scientific evidence alone. Talk about
          | global catastrophes."

          (P. 185, Scopes II: the Great Debate
          by Louisiana State Senator Bill Keith)

          (For those who don't know, Bill Keith was the sponsor of
          the bill to get creation science into Louisiana public
          schools, which led to the Edwards vs. Aguillard case.)

          This explains why you so often see creationists trying to
          pawn off the false dichotomy of Uniformitarianism vs.
          Catastrophism and pretending that modern geologists are
          not very well aware that catastrophes can and do show
          up in the geologic record.



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.