Title Author Date

Open call for readers for a new critique of creationism Downard, James Mar 10, 2003

Dear Talk Reason

I am currently concluding work on the final chapter of a new book on the creation/evolution controversy, "Troubles in Paradise: The Methodology of Creationism," and would welcome any critical reviews or overall commentary on the project. In summary:

A short introduction sets the overall frame for the debate (including historical background for the dramatis personae).

Chapter one lays out the fundamental "Rules of the Game" whose application ultimately sinks pseudoscience generally and creationism in particular. All rigorous disciplines have to pay attention to all the data (not just the bits that favor their side); they have to work out clearly what they think happened (including any novel concepts they may have lurking in the wings, such as "created types"); and finally, they have to earn their reputation on the basis of being able to account for the data set better than their rivals. Antievolutionists fail pathologically in all of these categories, which explains why they are able to sustain their beliefs in spite of such daunting evidence to the contrary.

With this refreshed demarcation argument laid out, the second chapter ('Dem Bones) hits three macroevolutionary episodes head on: the Cambrian Explosion, and the origin of birds and mammals. In that latter case, when approached from the scholarly methods angle, Phillip Johnson implodes on a scale hitherto not properly appreciated (including the fine criticism of Johnson on your website). Kevin Padian (whose National Center for Science Education has been most helpful in obtaining technical reviewing for my work) had his mammal experts at Berkeley put my therapsid evidence through the critical wringer to confirm that my argument was indeed as seriously bad for Johnson as it was.

With these macroevolutionary benchmarks in hand, the next chapter (Dinomania) hits the mythology of Flood Geology, but from the fresh perspective of dinosaur paleontology. Players who haven't received much attention in print previously (such as Kent Hovind and Richard Milton) are highlighted along with the usual ICR gang.

The next chapter (Creationism Lite) dismantles Michael Behe's irreducible complexity defense and Phillip Johnson's screwball notions of the nature of science. Finn Pond (head of the biology department at Whitworth College, and critic of the Discovery Institute's Steve Meyer, late of Whitworth's philosophy department) was particularly pleased with how I used the Alu pseudogene case to highlight the weak undercarriage of Intelligent Design biology.

--continued--

Title Author Date

Open call for readers for a new critique of creationism Downard, James Mar 10, 2003

With these necessary base data under the reader's belt, I tackle the hot button "Kulturkampf" issues of human evolution in chapter five (Planet of the Apes) and the implications of Biblical morality in six ('Cuz the Bible Tells Me So). The human evolution chapter is a more comprehensive treatment than has been marshalled in print before, including cutting edge research into cognitive theory and the nature of linguistics, all approached from the scholarly methods direction as laid out at the start of the book.

The Biblical chapter raises a critical methodological point: creationists are getting into trouble at a deep level of analytical inquiry, not per se because of their religious convictions. However, religion does enter the picture in two unavoidable ways: first, as an overriding motivation for nonnegotiable beliefs, and second, as the source for a flawed apologetic methodology already in place to defend Biblical inerrancy. The chapter also addresses the issue of natural morality and seriously undermines the pretense that the Bible is inherently a superior guide to matters of morality.

Chapter seven (School Daze) on which I am presently working deals with the educational fallout, from the danegrous "logic" put forth in the 1999 Kansas science standards through to the current campaign of the Discovery Institute and others in Ohio and elsewhere. William Dembski's mathematical arguments and Jonathan Wells' claims are disposed of en route.

"Troubles in Paradise" is intended to meet the needs of two audiences: general readers who may know little of the subject will come away knowing everything they need to reach informed decisions; and harried educators (from high school on up) will have in the reference notes a "one stop" resource (drawing on over 3900 citations, most dating from within the last 5 years) covering virtually every topic they might encounter from a creation-friendly student or parent.

A tactical lesson I have discovered in the course of research is that because my argument hits the debate at a deeper level than "methdological naturalism" (which relates to the interpretion of evidence, not how arguments are assembled in a scholarly sense, it effectively pulls the rug from under the current ID "Wedge" campaign that makes the debate over naturalistic philosophy the cornerstone of their complaint that regular science "won't let us play."

I do definitely defend the reasonableness of the naturalistic worldview, but that is accomplished after bulldozing the opposition off the field first for fundamental methodological flaws. This approach has practical utility, as I discovered when jousting with John Calvert (prominent in the Kansas, Ohio and West Virginia standards cases). Calvert simply had no fallback position at all beyond accusing me of only trying to defend naturalism (in spite of my explicit explanations to the contrary). I cover this hilarous episode in my final chapter.

--continued--

Title Author Date

Open call for readers for a new critique of creationism Downard, James Mar 10, 2003

So, if any of your various contributors would care to look over my manuscript (.doc file or also .pdf) for comment or input, I would be most appreciative.

Sincerely,

James Downard

Title Author Date

Open call for readers for a new critique of creationism TalkReason , Mar 10, 2003

Dear James,

We have posted your letter. If any of our authors will be interested
in reviewing your manuscript, we will let you know in this section.

Talk Reason