Volume 1, Number 2 April 1985 A publication for the members of SOR We have so much to repo

Volume 1, Number 2
April 1985

A publication for the members of SOR


 
  We have so much to report this time, I don't know if we can
squeeze it all on to four pages.  First, as you will notice, we
have finished our second reading list which you will find
enclosed.  If you need a few more of these to pass out to friends
and skeptics, let us know and we will be happy to send them to
you.  Our thanks to Peter Gordon for doing the leg work to pull
this reading list together.

  One of the more surprising papers on this list is Tom Bethell's
"Agnostic Evolutionists, The taxonomic case against Darwin," in the
February 1985 Harper's.  Why is it surprising? Let me quote what
the evolutionists said about it in the last newsletter of the
Committee of Correspondence, "The normally respectable Harper's has
an atrocious anti-evolution article...Because Harper's is so
respectable, the piece could give a great deal of aid and comfort
to the creationists."  We feel this paper is so significant that we
wrote to Harper's and got permission to copy the paper.  If you
would like a copy just indicate so on the
enclosed envelope and we will be glad to send you the article at
no charge.
                       Unix and CompuServe

  For those of you who like to communicate at electronic speed,
you might be interested in two computer networks that are
carrying creation/evolution dialogues among users.  The Unix
operating system is found on many university and research
computers which are all tied together in a network.  A forum
known as "net.origins" was started by SOR  member Paul Debuc. 
Our Branch Chapter President at University of Illinois, A. Ray
Miller, has also been a frequent contributor.  In fact he has
"field tested" some SOR brochures he is working on by submitting
the text to the network and asking for response.  There seems to
be a good representation of both creationists and evolutionists
on the network.

  Lane Lester informed me just this week that a similar forum has
developed on CompuServe which is accessible from anyone's home
computer.  The action has been occurring in the Science Education
Forum (G EDU13) under the Biology Data Library (DL 4).  A DIR
command will give a directory of text files.  The BRO command
allows you to "browse" abstracts and  keywords, and an R lets you
read the entry once you find one you like.  When I signed on last
night, I found out that Lane had been hashing out the definition
of speciation with a neurobiologist. If you have a home computer
and modem, then get down to your local computer store and sign up
for CompuServe.  What an opportunity to communicate directly with
science educators around the country.
               NABT Members Sent SOR Book Catalog

  We recently rented a portion of the mailing list of the
National Association of Biology Teachers and mailed them our new
book catalog.  Over 1,100 catalogs were sent out and we are just
now beginning to receive orders.  It's still to early to tell if
the mailing will be profitable in a financial sense of the word,
but it does look like we are reaching our goal of placing
creationist books in the public schools.  Four of the first five
replies were purchase orders from schools.
 
                            Finances

  Last time I reported that our finances were unusually low for
the time of year.  Well, now they are depressingly low.  We have
about $1,000 in bills that we are unable to pay at the moment and
we need another $1,000 to publish the next issue of Origins
Research.  As a result we have imposed a spending freeze and
decided to cut the next issue of the newsletter back from 16
pages to 8 pages.

  Part of the problem is that we had to convert a lot of our cash
to inventory to get ready for the NABT mailing.  In studying our
1984 finances it appears that not as many people are supporting
SOR on a regular monthly basis as were before.  We passed the hat
at the last staff meeting, to pay some pressing bills, but I
don't want to do that too often or nobody will show up at the
meetings anymore!

  Our long range plan is to increase SOR membership, but in the
short term special donations or monthly support would help get
the next newsletter printed on time. We are committed to running
SOR on a cash basis and do not plan on borrowing money to keep
operating.  It is not our desire to make this bulletin a heart
throbbing plea for funds every issue, but we do have a real need
at the moment in order to continue publishing.  Since we have a
large supply of Wysong's book The Creation/Evolution Controversy
in stock, we would be happy to send a copy to any member who can
donate $10 or more at this time.  Even if you have a copy, its an
excellent book to give to a friend or college student.  Be sure
to indicate on the enclosed envelope that you would like a copy
of the book.  

  On the brighter side, one of our long time needs was recently
met when a Savin 755 Copier was donated to SOR. However, it
has been in storage for several years and we will not be able to
put it into service until we are back in the black and have some
funds to have it serviced.

                           - Dennis Wagner, Executive Director


                     Notes From Peter Gordon

       Recent work from England. In the 21 Feb 1985 number of New
Scientist, p. 44, under the heading, "Another case for creation-
ism," our readers will find a short but interesting review by
P. T. Saunders, of the new book, Adam and Evolution, by Michael
Pitman (Hutchinson, 268 pp.).  Saunders, who is a mathematical
biologist and evolutionist at Queen Elizabeth College in London,
was impressed by a number of Pitman's arguments. He writes, for
instance, that "Darwin worried about the origin of the eye;
Pitman adds the problem of the origin of cytochrome c. And he
(Pitman) shows how very flimsy indeed is the neo-Darwinist
explanation of macroevolution."

  But Saunders is unimpressed, and is rather dismissive, of
Pitman's "chief aim," the proposal of creation as an alterna-
tive. Saunders argues (now, where have we heard this before) that
a refutation of Neo-Darwinism is not the same thing as a
refutation of evolution itself, that robust entity (you know,
IT'S A FACT, etc., case dismissed). Well, anyway, I agree, at
least insofar as there are other theories of "the mechanism,"
including Saunder's own theory, awaiting their turn with the
evidence.

  Is it entirely unreasonable for creationists to ask, however,
that THE FACT be held lightly, lightly enough, in fact, to allow
creation a place with the other theories? Perhaps Saunders will
(maybe soon?) be open to this possibility. (I'm not so sure about
Michael Ruse, who writes in Darwinism Defended, p. 58, "Evolution
is a fact, fact, FACT! I do not want to appear dogmatic or to
overstate the case here!" OK, Mike. Catch your breath.)

       Recent work from Austria. Alfred Locker, a scientist with
the Institute for Theoretical Physics, at the Technical Univer-
sity of Vienna, has written a long and interesting paper, "Evolu-
tion and 'evolution'-theory in systems-and meta-theoretical
respect," Acta Biotheoretica, vol. 32: 227-264, 1983. Here are
some excerpts for the abstract:

  In a critical survey, based on systems-theoretical and
  meta-theoretical considerations, principal objections
  against usual "evolution"-theory are raised, abounding the
  result, that this widely accepted theory is scientifically
  questionable...Because of the inevitability to definitely
  discard (evolutionary theory) in its usual form, the problem
  of an alternative to it emerges. It is suggested that this
  alternative cannot be found within the context of "Galilean
  science," but rather needs to be trans-scientific (i.e.,
  meta-theoretical), taking the inherent complementarity of any
  approach towards nature into account.

There is just one problem with this paper; it's auf Deutsch. (The
abstract is in English.) I am currently translating the paper,
and hope to complete the translation later this spring, but
anyone able to plow through some fairly heavy academic German is
encouraged to take a look at the paper.  Those same readers with
some German are also encouraged to take a look at a book edited
by Alfred Locker, Evolution-kritisch gesehen (Evolution in a
Critical Light), Salzburg, Universitats-verlag Anton Puster,
1983, 179 pp.  Eight essays and a epilogue provide a critical
discussion of evolution, in which (according to the review in
Acta Biotheoretica, vol. 33: p. 141 1984) "Evolution is viewed
from different angles, including philosophy, biochemistry,
paleontology, and genetics. The standpoint of the authors varies
from complete rejection of the evolutionary theory, to a synthet-
ic view in which Lamarckism and neo-Darwinism are regarded as
complementary."

       Recent work from Italy. Any reader who has wandered onto
the pages of Rivista di Biologia in the past four years will have
encountered articles such as the following: "Life as a non-
historical reality," by Giuseppe Sermonti (vol. 73, no. 4,
pp. 551-569, 1980). Sermonti is a geneticist and Professor at the
Institute of Histology and Embryology, University of Perugia. He
writes that his view "opposes the evolutionary view according to
which life as a general phenomenon is a progressive process," and
that his "eventual conclusion" is "that a stationary (steady-
state) view accounts better for the observed facts than an
evolutionary (historical) view. The problem of origins is outside
the domain of our understanding from the scientific point of
view." (p. 560). A year later, the same journal carried the notes
of a debate between Sermonti and a zoologist, P. Omodeo, held on
February 2, 1981. Sermonti's remarks included the following:

  According to evolutionism, life starts from a condition of
  extreme simplicity, the minimal elementary life, and through
  a mutation process a large Variability arises. Natural
  selection, working on this variability, determines Complexity
  and the Variability of living beings is the result of the
  huge amount of information, potentially contained in
  life...How can complexity have appeared at the beginning?
  this is a great question which I cannot answer. Again I wish
  to quote from Jacob: "The really creative part in
  biochemistry must have occurred very early..."  This is not
  far from stating that life began with complexity. (Rivista di
  Biologia, vol. 74, p. 396, 1981)

I do not have space here to cover all the articles of great
interest which have appeared recently in Rivista di Biologia,
but to my American eyes the freedom of discussion in this journal
is astonishing. There will be more to follow on Sermonti and his
collaborators. Meanwhile, (to paraphrase Shakespeare), get thee
to a library...
                                           - Peter Gordon