From: Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Stephen_E._Jon?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?es:_Creation/E?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?volution_Artic?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?les:_Colin_Pat?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?terson:_addres?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?s_at_the_Ameri?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?can_Museum_of_?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?Natural_Histor?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?y=2C_New_York_Ci?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?ty=2C_1981?= Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 22:34:17 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: =?iso-8859-1?Q?http://members?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?.iinet.net.au/?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?~sejones/patta?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?m01.html?= X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3314.1001 Stephen E. Jones: Creation/Evolution Articles: Colin = Patterson: address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York = City, 1981

Stephen E. Jones

Creation/Evolution Articles

Colin Patterson's address at the American Museum of Natural History, = New=20 York City, 1981, pages 1-5

[Home = page] [Site map] = [Update = log] [Articles]=

Pages [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6-10] = [11-14]

page 1

	Notice: Not approved for release in print = until
	edited by Colin Patterson


	SPEECH BY DR. COLIN PATTERSON

	AT THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL = HISTORY

	NEW YORK CITY

	November 5, 1981

My title is "Evolutionism and Creationism.". I can tell you that = title was=20 laid on me by Don Rosen. I'm speaking on it to gratify this old friend = of 700=20 years. I've never spoken on it before and I hope I never have to speak = on it=20 again. It's true that for the last eighteen months or so I've been = kicking=20 around non-evolutionary or even anti-evolutionary ideas. I think always = before=20 in my life when I've got up to speak on a subject, I've been confident = of one=20 thing that I know more about it than anybody in the room, because I've = worked on=20 it. Well, this time it isn't true. I'm speaking on two subjects = evolutionism and=20 creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever = about=20 either of them.

One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or = let's=20 call it a non- evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden = realization for=20 over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. = One=20 morning I woke up and something had happened in the night and it struck = me that=20 I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one = thing I=20 knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled = so long.=20 Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong = with=20 evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, = so for=20 the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various = people and=20 groups of people.

Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any = one=20 thing, that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the = Field=20 Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried = it on=20 the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of = Chicago,=20 a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was = silence for a=20 long time and eventually one person said, "I do know one thing - it = ought not to=20 be taught in high school."

Well, maybe someone here know a more convincing answer than. that - = something=20 they know about evolution. The other answer, apart from the high school = answer,=20 I've had from anybody, and I've had this from several people in = conversation -=20 yes, they do know something, Convergence is everywhere, that's what = they've=20 learned.

Well, I'll come to convergence later but it does seem that the level = of=20 knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to = be=20 taught in high school and that's all we know about it.

My second subject is creationism and what do we know about that? We = know that=20 it ought not be taught in high school too.

* Dr Patterson is a senior paleontologist and editor of their journal = at the=20 British Museum of Natural History in London. He author of the book=20 Evolution.

(Patterson C., "Evolutionism and Creationism," Transcript of Address = at the=20 American Museum of Natural History, New York NY, November 5, 1981, p.1) = [Top of = page]=20

page 2

... I want to talk about evolutionism and creationism as applied=20 systematics... The text of my sermon will be from Gillespie's book, = Charles=20 Darwin and the Problem of Creation, California University Press...I = want to=20 consider the way in which these two alternative world views-evolutionism = and=20 creationism have affected or might affect systematics and = systematists.

Gillespie's book is a historian's attempt explain the amount of space = that=20 Darwin gave to combating the creationist arguments. Gillespie shows that = what=20 Darwin was doing was trying to replace the creationist paradigm by a = positivist=20 paradigm, a view of the world in which there was neither room nor = necessity for=20 final causes. Of course, Gillespie takes it for granted that Darwin and = his=20 disciples succeeded in this task. He takes it for granted that a = rationalist=20 view of nature has replaced an irrational one and of course, I myself = took that=20 view about eighteen months ago. Then I woke up and realized that all my = life I=20 had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some = way.

From my new viewpoint, some of Gillespie's comments on pre-Darwinian=20 creationism seem to be strikingly apt, but they are apt because when I=20 transposed them from the period he is talking about (1850s to today) - = Here is=20 one quote from Gillespie's book:

"The old scientific epic scene has sanctioned, or so it = appears=20 from the new perspective, a pseudo-paradigm that was not a research = governing=20 theory. This is hard to explain with only verbal, but an anti-theory, = a void=20 that had the function of knowledge but as naturalists increasingly = came to=20 feel, conveyed none."

Here Gillespie is characterising the old pre-Darwinian creationist = paradigm.=20 But I feel that what he says could just as well be applied to = evolutionary=20 theory today.

Now, of course, it must seem to you that I'm either misguided or a = malicious=20 to suggest that such words could be applied to evolutionary theory. But = I hope=20 to say that there is something at least as far as systematics is = concerned.=20 Gillespie says first that creationism can't be a research governing = theory since=20 its power to explain is only verbal. Now today evolution certainly seems = to be a=20 research governing theory. Most of us think that we are working in = evolutionary=20 research. But is its explanation power any more than verbal when in = systematics=20 the research governing aspects of evolution is common ancestry or = descent with=20 modification or divergence?

Those of you who were at the meeting last month may have heard that = both Rob=20 Brady and I without any prior collusion both quoted the same statement. = This was=20 the statement:

"Explanatory value of the hypothesis of common ancestry is=20 nil."

We attributed that statement to T.S. Russell's 1916 book, Form and = Function. In thinking about it since then, I feel that the effects = of=20 hypotheses common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, = not just a=20 lack of knowledge, I think it has been positively anti-knowledge. I'll = come back=20 to that later anyway.

Gillespie also said that creationism is an anti-theory, a void that = has the=20 function of knowledge but conveys none. Well, what about evolution? It = certainly=20 has the function of knowledge but does it convey any? Well we're back to = the=20 question that I've been putting to people. "Is there any one thing you = can tell=20 me about evolution?" The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is = true,=20 evolution does not convey any knowledge or if so, I haven't yet heard of = it.

(Patterson C., "Evolutionism and Creationism," Transcript of Address = at the=20 American Museum of Natural History, New York NY, November 5, 1981, p.2) = [Top of=20 page]

page 3

Well, here we all are. We all have shelves of books on evolution. = We've all=20 read tons of them and most of us have written one or two. How could it = be that=20 some Donald Black had read these books and learned nothing from them? = How could=20 I work on evolution twenty years and learn nothing from it? Gillespie's = comment:=20 "a void that has the function of knowledge but conveys none" seems to me = to be=20 very precise, very apt.

But in systematics there are pieces of evolutionary knowledge that = all our=20 heads are stuffed with, from the :most general statements like = eukaryotes=20 evolved from prokaryotes, vertebrates evolved from. invertebrates, down = to=20 specific ones like I evolved from apes. I imagine by now this group does = appreciate that such statements exactly fit Gillespie's description - = voids that=20 have the function of knowledge but that convey none.

To analyze all such things saying that there is a group, a real group = of=20 characters, eukaryotes, vertebrates, Homo sapiens, whatever, and = opposed=20 to is a non-group, prokaryotes, invertebrates, apes. These are = abstractions that=20 have no character of their own; they have no existence in nature and = therefore=20 they cannot possibly convey knowledge, though they appear to when you = first hear=20 such statements.

So, in general, I'm trying to suggest two themes. The first is that=20 evolutionism and creationism seem to have become very hard to = distinguish,=20 particularly lately. I've just been showing how Gillespie's bitterest=20 characterization of creationism seems to be, as I think, applicable to=20 evolutionism - a sign that the two are very similar.

Now as you all know thee is somewhat of a revolution going on in = evolutionary=20 theory at the moment. It doesn't concern the fact of evolution or things = general=20 theory of evolution, descent with modification. It concerns possible = mechanisms=20 that are responsible for transformations. Well, natural selection is = under fire=20 and we hear a raft of new and alternative theories. I've heard four in = the last=20 six weeks.

Well, here's Gillespie again on creationism in the 1850s. He = says:

"Frequently, those holding creationist ideas could plead = ignorance=20 of the means and affirm only the facts."

That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking, to = evolutionists today.=20 They plead ignorance of the means of transformation but affirm only the = facts,=20 knowing that it's taken place. Again the two points do seem hard to=20 distinguish.

Here are a couple more quotes from Gillespie. Again, he's saying = things on=20 creationism that seem to be just as applicable to evolution today.

"The supposed credibility of the theory was merely the = result of=20 familiarity."

Here's a second quote:

"Too much of the contents of the old science was the result = of=20 intuition that was in principle unverifiable either directly or=20 indirectly."

(Patterson C., "Evolutionism and Creationism," Transcript of Address = at the=20 American Museum of Natural History, New York NY, November 5, 1981, p.3) = [Top of=20 page]

page 4

Now those two may have a familiar ring. We hear that sort of thing in = evolutionary theory all the time.

Here's another quote on the changing world view associated with the = spread of=20 evolutionary thinking in the 1860s.

"Just as science shifted from a theological ground to a = positive=20 one so religion among many scientists and laymen influenced by science = shifted=20 from religion as knowledge to religion as faith."

So I think many people in this room would acknowledge that during the = last=20 few years if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift = from=20 evolution as knowledge, to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me = and I=20 think it's true of good many of you in here.

So that's my first theme. That evolution and creation seem to be = sharing=20 remarkable parallels that are increasingly hard to tell apart.

The second theme is that evolution not only conveys no knowledge but = seems=20 somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is = .................=20 to systematics.

I want to illustrate that with a couple of parables. These parables = concern a=20 diagram that I expect to be immediately familiar to all of you when I = put it up.=20 Do you recognize it? It is a diagram that Ernst Mayr has used in his = repeated=20 explanations of the true method in systematics that exists in = evolutionary=20 systematics.

                            C
                           / k
                          \
                         / j
                        \
                       / i
                      \
                     / h
                    \
                   / g
                  \
                 / f
               \
              / e
             \
       B    / d
A      |   \
 \   b -  / c
  /    | \
 1 \   |/ b
    /  |
   a \ - a
      \|
       |
       |

Fig. 1 Cladogram of taxa A, B, and C. Cladists combine B and C into a = single=20 taxon because B and C share the synapomorph character b. Evolutionary=20 taxonomists separate C from A and B, which they combine, because C = differs by=20 many (c through k) autapomorph characters from A and B and shares only = one (b)=20 synapomorph character with B.

My first lesson with the diagram - the first parable - looks like = that. (See=20 Figure 1). That is the version that came out in Science (October = 30,=20 1981) last week. The marks along the lines are all autapomorphies of A, = B, and C=20 except. for that one which is a synapomorphy of B and C. In Mayr's paper = in=20 Science last week C is man, B is the chimpanzee, our sister group = according to Mayr and A is not named but I would assume it is the = gorilla,=20 Here's what Mayr said:

"The main difference between cladists and evolutionary=20 taxonomists, thus, is in the treatment or autapomorph characters. = Instead of=20 automatically giving sister groups the same rank, the evolutionary = taxonomist=20 ranks them by considering the relative weight of their autapomorphies = as=20 compared to their synapomorphies (Fig. 1). For instance, one of the = striking=20 autapomorphies or man (in comparison to his sister group, the = chimpanzee) is=20 in the possession of Broca's center in the brain, a character that. is = closely=20 correlated with man's speaking ability. This single character is for = most=20 taxonomists of greater weight than various synapomorphous similarities = or even=20 identities in man and the apes in certain macromolecules such as = hemoglobins=20 and cytochrome c. The particular importance of' autapomorphies is = that. they=20 reflect the occupation of new niches and new adaptive zones that may = have=20 greater biological significance than synapomorphies in some of the = standard=20 macromolecules."

There are several things one might say about that statement but not = all of=20 them would be polite so I'll just point out that both the statement and = the=20 diagram are intended to convey knowledge of evolution. The diagram in = the=20 different angles of the lines there and the statement in reference to = things=20 like new niches and new adaptive zones, etc. When I first read that = passage in=20 Science it immediately reminded me of something - an episode in = the=20 history of evolution that many of you may recall; something called "The = Great=20 Hippocampus Question." The Great

(Patterson C., "Evolutionism and Creationism," Transcript of Address = at the=20 American Museum of Natural History, New York NY, November 5, 1981, p.4) = [Top of=20 page]

page 5

Hippocampus Question is recorded in fiction in Charles Kingsley's = novel, his=20 children's book, The Water-Babies, In fact, not in fiction, it = was a=20 controversy that lasted through 1861 and 62 between Richard Owen and = T.H.=20 Huxley. Owen was a creationist and Huxley an evolutionist. Owen, the = creationist=20 ; insisted that man was quite distinct from the apes. He couldn't be = related to=20 them by descent or any other physical link because the brain of man = contained a=20 certain centre, the hippocampus, that was absent in apes. T.H. Huxley = insisted=20 that man was related to the apes because the ape's brain, so he said, = contained=20 a center that was homologous to the hippocampus. The row went on for two = years=20 and eventually a usual, Huxley won.

Here we are 120 years later and we have Ernst Mayr, the evolutionist, = insisting that man is quite distinct from the apes because the brain of = man=20 contains a certain center Broca's center, that is absent in apes. Mayr = even goes=20 on to cite Julian Huxley, grandson of T.H. Huxley and with some approval = of his=20 kingdom for Psychozoa. You remember that? It all begins to sound very = familiar,=20 doesn't it? Yet notice how the roles have been reversed. The part of = Owen, the=20 creationist, with hippocampus now taken by Mayr, the evolutionist and = Broca's=20 center. The part of T.H. Huxley, the evolutionist, is now taken by the = cladists,=20 who most people now cite as anti-evolutionists, many do.

Bev Halstead, who I'm sure needs no introduction here published a = paper=20 called, "A Debate with the Creationists" in which he called me a devoted = disciple of Sir Richard Owen. So be it. The wheel has gone right the way = around.=20 The evolutionist is now taking just the stand that the creationist took = 120=20 years ago- Broca's center equals the hippocampus .This parable = reinforces the=20 point I was making earlier that evolutionists and creationists are now = hard to=20 distinguish.

I want to use it to make another point about evolution being an = anti-theory=20 that conveys anti-knowledge. It is harmful to systematics. What is Mayr=20 recommending? He recommends that man be maintained in a taxa of high = rank,=20 distinct from the apes. Look at what prompts him to that recommendation. = It is=20 his apparent knowledge of evolution - that man has evolved at an = exceptional=20 rate... Those evolutionary facts justify a taxa of high rank. Then look = at the=20 consequence of his recommendations. Man is removed in a taxa of high = rank and=20 apes are left to the character of the group, a group without characters = and=20 therefore with no individuality or reality and therefore an abstraction = that is=20 beyond criticism.

...Man evolved from the apes. That must say something about = evolution. Seems=20 to me we have another statement that has the appearance of knowledge, = but, in=20 fact, contains none, a piece of antiknowledge derived from the = evolutionary=20 theory. Rather than comment further on this I'll quote what T.H. Huxley = said of=20 Owen in 1861, again referring to the hippocampus question:

"I do not believe that in the whole history of science there = is a=20 case of a man of reputation putting himself in such a contemptible=20 position."

(Patterson C., "Evolutionism and Creationism," Transcript of Address = at the=20 American Museum of Natural History, New York NY, November 5, 1981, p.5) =

[Top of=20 page]

Copyright =A9 1999-2003, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved. = This page=20 and its contents may be used for non-commercial purposes only. If used = on the=20 Internet, a link back to my home page at http://members.iinet.net.au= /~sejones=20 would be appreciated. Created: 2 December, 1999. Updated: 8 August,=20 2003.