>I don't know Phil Johnson's view on common ancestry. (I would suspect that he
>is
>rather skeptical.)
Yes, even though Behe accepts it.
>But I think I understand his reason for claiming that
>microevolution but not macroevolution is acceptable. Common ancestry does not
>prove
>continuity of natural causes. Therefore, common ancestry per se reveals nothing
>about the creative capacity of nature. Common ancestry is a necessary but
>insufficient condition for macroevolution (as Phil uses the word, meaning not
>just
>speciation by natural causes alone, but development of all phyla from organic
>precursors by natural causes alone). What would count as evidence for
>macroevolution? Both (1) a continuous smooth genetic trajectory without any
>viability gaps beginning with organic precursors and continuing throughout the
>entire phylogenetic tree and (2) fossil and genetic evidence that correponds to
>that trajectory. Since we are still a long way from achieving (1), [we don't
>yet
>even have such a genetic trajectory for the origin of the simplest life form;
>it is
>all speculation at this point] it is scientifically and philosophically
>presumptious to declare that we know that nature did the whole thing on her
>own. I
>think that is Phil's point, and I agree with it. You might respond that it is
>presumptious to declare that nature *didn't* do the whole thing on her own. I
>agree. But Phil's point (insofar as I've got him correctly here) still stands.
That would be a valid point, if he did not go beyond it. However, two
invalid points are added. First is making the claim that nature definitely
did not do it on its own. Although the picture is by no means complete,
the gaps have consistently narrowed, so that macroevolution sensu Johnson,
etc. is plausible. The purported gaps in common ancestry invoked by
Johnson, etc. tend not to reflect paleontological reality.
The more serious error is identifying macroevolution sensu Johnson as
disproof of God. A Christian viewpoint requires that nature achieving
things on its own is actually God using means to achieve his purposes
rather than true independance. Being omniscient and omnipotent, He could
create things any way He liked. It is this theological error that is most
disturbing about his claims and their widespread warm reception.
David C.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 29 2000 - 17:58:20 EDT