[Letter from DeWitt below:] Released for public domain by Rev. Tip Killingsworth. ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: RE: [Fwd: [Human] Dishonest David Dewitt] From: "Dewitt, David A. (Faculty Biology/Chemistry)" Date: Sun, December 20, 2009 3:03 pm To: "tip@masterlife.org" -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the opportunity for a defense. I saw this soon after it was posted over a year ago. My first response is that it is quite ironic. Ironic because the author essentially quote mined my book in order to accuse me of quote mining. Notice there are only 3 sentences of mine which are in this blog article. The rest are quotes or partial sentences. My second response is that my book must be quite good if this is the best criticism he can muster against it. Generally speaking, quote mining refers to quoting out of context or quoting in a way to distort the intended meaning. An example that is frequently brought up are some of Stephen J. Gould's quotes about the fossil record. A sentence or two could be pulled out that would make it seem like Gould didn't believe in evolution at all when what he really was critical of was the uniform gradualness of evolution. This blog is referring to Chapter 5 of my book titled "Not So Natural Selection". After a brief historical information about Charles Darwin, I begin a section on the nuts and bolts of biological evolution and the title heading is "Principles of Evolution." The section begins: "According to Ernst Mayr, who was described as one of the greatest evolutionary scientists that ever lived, there are five separate components to Darwin's theory of evolution. 3 1. The non-constancy of species 2. The descent of all organisms from common ancestors 3. The gradualness of evolution 4. The multiplication of species 5. Natural selection" The rest of the chapter explains both the common evolutionary definitions, explanations and arguments supplemented with criticisms. I relied on Mayr for the evolution perspective. This is why at the start, footnote 3 I cite Mayr and state: " While the list of five components of Darwinism is from Mayr, the descriptions and explanations given here are the work of the author of this book. The author's work should not be confused with that of Dr. Mayr who was a firm and committed evolutionist." I wanted to make sure that it was quite clear that I was not saying that Mayr doubted evolution. This is also why when I quoted Gould I say in the text: " To his dying day, Gould did not express doubts about evolution and the quote used here should not suggest otherwise. He argued strongly against gradualism-the slow steady change of organisms through time-not against evolution per se. Since creationists used this quote so much against him and against evolution, the usual charge is that creationists are taking the quote out of context. Therefore, I want to go out of my way to say that in context: Gould argued against gradualism and not evolution itself. " And " Again, for clarity, Gould is arguing against gradualism not evolution itself. Further, Gould did not say that transitional forms are completely absent only that they are rare. Gould used this information to argue in favor of what he and fellow paleontologist Niles Eldridge called punctuated equilibrium. " So it cannot be said that I was quoting them out of context in order to support my argument. Here is more of the actual material from my book instead of just what is in the blog. The subheading is "nonconstancy of species" When creationists criticize evolution, it is this aspect of the theory that they typically disagree with. While change through time per se does not conflict with the Bible the common ancestry of all organisms most certainly does. In Genesis, God made different kinds of creatures and they reproduced "according to their kinds." Importantly, the variation in organisms is directly observable, whereas common ancestry between diverse types of organisms must be assumed. Therefore, this aspect of Darwin's theory is not supported by direct observation. Often the evidence that is used to support common ancestry is the similarities between organisms. Mayr explained: "Since all members of a taxon must consist of the descendants of the nearest common ancestor, this common descent can be inferred only by the study of their homologous characters. But how do we determine whether or not the characters of two species are homologous? We say that they are if they conform to the definition of homologous: A feature in two or more taxa is homologous when it is derived from the same (or a corresponding) feature of their nearest common ancestor." (Emphasis in original) Or consider this from a recent biology textbook: "Similar structures in two or more species are called homologous structures if the structures are similar because they evolved from the same ancestral structure." Notice the circular reasoning that is being applied here. Common ancestry is inferred by studying homologous (similar) characters and yet homologous characters are defined as being derived from a common ancestor. This becomes extremely problematic and only works if you assume that common ancestry is true. The similarity between very different types of organisms (i.e. frogs, dogs and people which all have four limbs) does not really provide evidence that they are related to the same ancestors. In the same way, the similarities in physiology, metabolism, or even DNA sequences do not really prove common ancestry for different types of organisms. All it does is demonstrate that the DNA is similar. The next obvious question is: What is the reason for the similarity? Creationists maintain that the similarities in organisms are the result of a common Creator. Since all living things were made by God, and made to be in relationship with each other in the same world, there should be similarities. Evolutionists on the other hand insist that it is evidence of common ancestry. It is only evidence of common ancestry if you assume that there was no Creator. In the absence of creation, common ancestry is a reasonable explanation for the similarities. However, the data does not rule out or disprove creation and therefore common ancestry remains an unproven assumption. End quote So, in the broader context of the chapter, the point that is being made is that similarity is only evidence for common ancestry if you assume common ancestry in the first place. Ultimately it may be some of the weakest evidence that can be used for evolution although it is some of the most common. Evolutionists will argue that evolution predicts similarity. Oh really? How much? Specifically what will be similar and to what degree? How much difference does evolution predict? Specifically what differences and to what degree? Similarity is very weak evidence because it is the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. It is the same as 1 Broccoli makes me sick. 2 I am sick. 3 Therefore I ate broccoli. Obviously I could be sick because I caught a virus. Common ancestry would be like this: 1. Similar organisms are derived from common ancestors. 2. Organisms are similar. 3. Therefore all organisms come from common ancestors. Tip, thanks for the opportunity to provide a defense. I went out of my way to write the book in such a way that an evolutionist would disagree with my arguments but would also admit that I presented their side accurately. David A. DeWitt