In a letter published in the May/June "Mailbag" column, Marion Fox complained about the deletion of some paragraphs from his article that appeared in the March/April issue. Those paragraphs have now been published. I deleted them from his original article for three reasons: (1) the article was supposed to reply to what I had said in response to his attempt to show that the exclusion of bastards from the assembly of Yahweh (Deut. 23:2) would not have necessitated banning David and the sons of Aaron from the assembly, (2) the paragraphs I deleted related not to the topic under discussion but to an issue involving my debate with Jerry Moffitt, and (3) Fox failed to give sufficient background for his comments about this debate to be understood by those who have not seen the debate tapes.
My decision to omit the paragraphs was based primarily on the third reason just listed. Now that the part I deleted has been published, I'm sure readers will agree that Fox made an assertion that no one could possibly understand without first viewing the debate tapes. Exactly what did I say in my debate with Jerry Moffitt that would indicate that I "made a serious error in [my] understanding of mathematical probability"? Fox didn't say. He didn't even hint at what this serious error was. He simply asserted that I had made such an error and then launched into an explanation of the difference in the probabilities of related and unrelated events. Even though I was a participant in the debate, I don't recall anything I said that would lead Fox to believe that I don't understand the difference in the probabilities of related and unrelated events, so I certainly don't expect readers who have never seen the debate to understand what he means. If he thought that I made a "serious error," he should have explained exactly what I said.
I do remember stating that his and Moffitt's attempts to calculate the probability of life beginning on earth were foolish, and I still maintain that position. Creationists are fond of pointing out that scientists do not know how to make life, but at the same time, they like to talk about the "probability" of life beginning without intelligent creation. Apparently, they can't see the incompatibility of the two positions. If humans can't "make" life, it is because we don't yet understand all of the factors that are necessary to have life, so if all of the factors necessary to life are unknown, how can anyone calculate the probability of life beginning by natural means? Mr. Fox was able to explain the chances of drawing the number three ball out of a hat precisely because he knew all of the factors involved. He knew that there were six balls in the hat, but could he calculate the probability of drawing the number three ball if he didn't know how many balls were in the hat? I think he is intelligent enough to know that he couldn't, yet he seems to think that creationists can calculate the probability of life forming naturally on the earth when neither he nor anyone else knows how many factors would be involved in the formation of life. So I wonder just who doesn't understand "mathematical probability."
On the matter of vestigial organs, Fox seems to be arguing that because scientists were wrong in postulating that tonsils and appendices were vestigial organs, the whole concept of vestigial organs is incorrect, so pseudogenes must have a purpose. In other words, wrong in one thing, wrong in everything seems to be his argument. Is this the fellow who is trying to lecture us on the logical errors in atheistic thinking?
Scientists have long known that whales have vestiges of pelvic girdles and hindlimbs that were interpreted to mean that modern whales are descendants of land animals that once moved about on legs (Michael J. Novacek, "Whales Leave the Beach," Nature, April 28, 1994, p. 807). This assumption has since been verified by the discovery in Pakistan of an amphibious ancestor of whales that lived 52 million years ago. The fossil shows clearly defined front and hindlimbs that probably enabled it to leave the water and move about on land, awkwardly undoubtedly, because the body was more adapted to swimming (Ibid.; Philip D. Gingerich et al, "New Whale from the Eocene of Pakistan and the Origin of Cetacean Swimming," Nature, April 28, 1994, p. 844). A subsequent discovery of whale fossils in Egypt has shown that descendants of the amphibious "whales" possessed hindlimbs but no front limbs, and even today some whales are born with external vestigial hindlimbs. I'm sure Mr. Fox wishes that he could cite even a fraction as much evidence from the fossil record to support his creationist view.
It isn't the purpose of The Skeptical Review to discuss
evolution,
but since Mr. Fox's complaint about the omission of paragraphs from his
earlier article brought up the subject, I will simply suggest that he
put
aside the materials that fundamentalist preachers have published on the
subject of evolution and try to do some reading in scientific journals.
He might be surprised at what he will learn.
