Stephen Jones replied:
>Then what is it?<
and,
>>I use "Darwinism" in the broad sense as Phil Johnson:
"By "Darwinism I mean fully naturalistic evolution, involving chance
mechanisms guided by natural selection." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
Trial", Second Edition, 1993, Inter Varsity Press, Illinois, p4)<<
If that is your definition of Darwinism, then I certainly do not fit your
definition of a Darwinist. I do not believe in a *fully naturalistic*
evolution. I believe that God was involve, just not involved in the manner
you think he was.
Stephen wrote:
>>GM>IMO (and the opinion of others to whom I am grateful for some of
>this) the next great school of thought in evolutionary theory will
>combine nonlinear dynamics with punc-eq. and developmental biology.
>Those three views are made for each other and can explain a whole lot
>of unexplained phenomena such as the Cambrian Explosion, transitions
>between taxa and the nature of the fossil record.
So you do acknowledge that current evolutionary theory is inadequate
to explain the above?<<
Yes, and no, depending upon what you define as "current evolutionary theory".
If by that you mean everything must be gradually changed from one form into
another, I would say that is inadequate. If you mean what is being learned
in the mechanisms of developmental biology, then it is adequate to handle
those types of change.
Stephen wrote:
>What else was Darwin wrong on (apart
from "use and disuse of parts" and "pangenes") that "Christians"
should not continue attacking today? Was he wrong on his central
tenet:<<
I would define his central tenet as the concept that life has evolved from
single cell animals. If that is what you accept as his central tenet, then I
do not think Darwin was wrong. If you think his central tenet was that life
arose without God, then I think Darwin is wrong.
Stephen wrote:
>>So you agree that current Darwinism (including Neo-Darwinism and
Punctuated Equilibria) does not "explain the data"? It would be
helpful then if you stated that unequivocally, and where particularly
you think it is inadequate.<<
No I don't think all that. As I mentioned in a previous post, there is
gradual change observed today, How can I disagree with observational science?
I think gradual change is incapable of explaining the major morphological
transitions. (but a simple change in material flow in the leg of a chick
embryo turns his legs into lizard legs) Thus punc-eq + the recent
discoveries in developmental biology are required for those transitions.
glenn
Stephen wrote: