I would really need to know more about these fields, and of course,
everything depends on how you define "science", but let me have a go anyway.
As I understand it, both economists and meterologists have theoretical
models which make predictions - though these predictions are often
probabilistic in nature and error prone. Nevertheless, the mechanistic
models are there and their predictions can be tested (with some degree of
difficulty and significant error) against the evidence. This is in contrast
with astrology and phrenology which make predictions that, to my knowledge,
are not supported by the evidence. Thus in at least a weak sense you could
put meterology and economics under the banner "science" where as the
remaining two would be excluded.
But let's look at economics. It is my understanding that there are quite a
number of theories describing economic activity. All have some measure of
success in describing economic activity, but it is hard to tell due to the
imprecise nature of the predictions and the proneness to error. (I hope my
lacking economics background is not showing too much.) It may be that it is
difficult to distinguish between two different theories on the available
evidence. It is also (I think) acnowledged that any of these models is
incomplete - not capturing the whole truth, but hopefully capturing "a part
of the true picture".
I am wondering whether evolution and PC should be viewed in such a light.
They may be indistinguishable on the basis of the evidence we have, and due
to the imprecise nature of their predictions. While we may agree to call
economics a science, due to the nature of the subject, we shouldn't claim to
be as confident about its theories as we claim to be about sciences like
physics and chemistry. Perhaps evolutionary theory should be viewed
similarly - and perhaps PC is an alternative, valid model?
Another thing that concerns me is that it seems to me that neo-Darwinians
present evolution as being far more predictive and well understood than it
really is. They seem to claim that their understanding of genetics gives a
rigorous mechanical underpinning to Darwin's original theory. Thus, in
their view, evolution has passed on from being like an economics theory, and
has become a theory with status similar to physical and chemical theories.
This claim seems to me to be somewhat unsubstanciated.
Our understanding of genetics describes, in a mechanistic way, how an
evolution-like process might work - and certainly I understand there is a
significant amount of evidence that micro-evolution does in fact take place
- through the mechanism of genetics. However, this understanding (our
current level of understanding) tells us very little about _how_ powerful
this evolution-like process actually is. In order to know how plausible the
genetics mechanism is as an explanation of the transition from one animal
(A) to another (B), we need to know much more about genetics than we
actually do. We would need to consider the possible transitional pathways
from the DNA of (A) to the DNA of (B). We would need to know the viability
of these pathways. That is, for every transitional DNA string on a path
from (A) to (B), we would need to know what kind of animal that DNA string
would produce, as well as knowing how fit the resultant animal would be. To
my knowledge, geneticists have only very limited knowledge about how a DNA
string translates into a full blown biological system. If I am wrong on
this I would very much like to hear about it. How much do geneticists
know?
>> If you allow
>>evolutionists to make this claim, why not allow Progressive Creationists to
>>make the claim: "God formed the animals by taking one animal and slightly
>>modifying it to form another".
>
>This claim of PC is valid, but the results are no different than what you'd
>get from evolution. So the big difference between TE and PC is whether you
>are satisfied with the explanation that "God formed the animals by taking
>one animal and slightly modifying it to form another" or whether you want to
>see if you can find out how God might have done this.
But doesn't evolution effectively say "Genetics formed the animals by taking
one animal and slightly modifying (through a genetic mechanism) to form
another"? Sure, this explanation tells you a little more about the process,
but there are no guarentees this process is correct. I could give you
another process which could describe the event. Eg, God went along a DNA
molecule, bit by bit, and changed the links as he saw fit to form a new DNA
molecule - this was the basis for his new creature (the whole procedure of
DNA modification taking less than a minute). This is no less a description
of how God might have done it than the genetics one. But perhaps you will
say to me: "why suggest a supernatural explanation when a perfectly good
natural one exists". Well the answer is that I am yet to be convinced
(though I might one day be) that the genetics explanation is "perfectly
good". It is not perfectly clear to me that genetics is capable of
producing the large transitions evolution requires it to produce.
>Some time ago, Christians felt more comfortable with using science to
>explore God's created universe, but then natural science was largely
>descriptive. As the study of biology, geology, and other parts of nature
>became more mechanistic, Christians balked. For instance, up until the 19th
>century, Christians were satisfied with the capriciousness and
>unpredictability of earthquakes, thinking that they were the result of God's
>divine intervention in the affairs of the world. They fought attempts of
>geologists working to understand the natural causes of the phenomenon. Note
>that even though we have good understanding of the causes of earthquakes,
>this information doesn't really exclude the possibility that they may still
>be due to God's intervention. Your stand that evolutionary data can be
>better explained by PC, is similar to the earthquake analogy. You are
>satisfied saying that God did it and stopping there. Why not pursue the
>matter further to see if we can learn how God did it? Evolution, in part or
>parcel, may or may not provide some answers, but it useful to have a theory
>to test--especially since alternative mechanistic theories are not available.
I accept your point. I can accept that evolution might be the means by
which God created life - the study of origins might go down the same path as
earthquakes. My point is that, as far as I can see, it has not gone down
that path yet. Neo-evolutionists claim we are already there. I have yet to
see adequate evidence. Let us not embrace the full theory evolution
prematurly. We have a right to be non-commital if the evidence is not
there. (Of course, neither am I convinced creation _could_not_ have
occured through a genetic process.)
Mark.