David Tyler and I exchanged:
> LH> "So just what are the defects and "unjustified grandiose
> > extrapolations" found in neo-Darwinian literature? Here are three
> > that I have encountered:
> > 1) The claim that the data, and macroevolutionary theory in general,
> > supports the "no-Creator" hypothesis.
> > 2) The glossing over of macroevolution's "weak areas" [....]
> > 3) The dismissal of the possibility that a Creator could have guided
> > evolution and, perhaps, performed supernatural miracles at strategic
> > points in biological history (e.g. to overcome the "weak areas")."
DT> Given time, I am sure we could all expand on this. Things
> that come to mind as I write are: the way "story-telling" is
> presented asscience; the lack of a critical evaluation of hypotheses
> and alternative explanations; the lack of a coherent methodology for
> the testing of assumptions and theoretical concepts (eg - the Limits
> of Variation discussion).
I agree that those faults are too common in the literature I have read.
They deserve to be listed separately (though I vaguely had them in mind
when I wrote #2, and to some extent #3, above).
----------------
> LH> "In my mind, the first defect is the worst, and the one we should
> > address most forcefully. It has no place in the educational or
> > professional literature (nearly EVERY scientist would agree with
> > this), and it should be exposed in the popular literature, whenever
> > possible, for the philosophical blunder and religious bias that it
> > is."
DT> It seems to me that this is where Phil Johnson is putting the
> emphasis: pointing out that many contemporary scientists are equating
> naturalism with science. The same story appears in areas of science
> distinct from evolutionary biology.
For the sake of clarity, I should rewrite the "first defect of
neo-Darwinian literature" this way:
1a) The claim, "If-macroevolution-then-no-Creator." (That is, the claim
that IF biological history can be reconstructed in terms of the regular
and continuous operation of empirically known natural mechanisms, THEN
there was no Creator who designed and guided the system. A smaller
version of this claim is that certain _specific_ "design flaws," such as
the blind spot in vertebrate eyes, "disproves" the Creator.)
As I said, this is the defect which I believe we should address most
forcefully. Unfortunately, my impression of Dr. Johnson's writings, and
most Progressive Creation/Design Theory literature in general, is that
they address this point only briefly and in passing. Indeed, some
Progressive Creation literature argues so energetically against
macroevolution that the author leaves the impression that he BELIEVES
"if-macroevolution-then-no-Creator."
In any reform of "evolutionary literature," defect #1a must be
specifically addressed and refuted first. Otherwise, subsequent analysis
about the inadequacies of certain macroevolutionary data/methodology will
leave the wrong impression!
-------------
Thanks for this very useful discussion. You raise excellent points.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The best things in life are free. | Loren Haarsma
There is no such thing as a free lunch. | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu
===> Lunch is not one of the best things in life. |