For over two years I have discussed my book (_The Biotic Message_) with
opponents on reflectors, talk.origins, and private e-mail. Almost all my
free time has gone there. As much as I love that form of dialogue, it is
ephemeral, fleetingly transitory, and limited in the number of people who
will ever see it. I end up spoon feeding my book to the uninitiated (and
oftentimes even to opponents who are arguing against my book without having
seriously read it). What is more, I end up having to repeat it all over
again for various people and forums.
A few months back I made a brief post clarifying a small aspect of Popper's
Recantation. It is a simple, well-confined issue, I thought -- I wouldn't
get dragged in, I hoped. But soon the reflector discussion splayed in
various directions, with many people piling on, asking questions, making
charges -- The usual rough and tumble. Before long, the reflector became my
life. Does this sound familiar?
I'm not complaining, in fact I love it. I am in the happy situation of
having a point of view that I and others find intriguing enough to discuss.
A while ago, Del Ratzch had some good questions for me that I want to get
back to. And Loran Haarsma had some on Haldane's Dilemma. I haven't
forgotten.
As interest in my book grows, time limitations press me to move off these
reflectors and into more durable forms of publishing. (Journal articles and
a web site are planned.) That announcement is one purpose of this post.
Some opponents may charge that my non-participation is a dodge. So I remind
them, I have already made myself more accessible than creationist or
evolutionist authors typically do. Also, I think these reflectors are great
for clarifying things, for banter, and for eliminating many silly angles of
approach. But ultimately any argument worth making seriously, is worth
publishing in a permanent fashion -- not merely on this reflector. In other
words, I am up-ing the ante. I'm happy to kick things around with you, but
if you think your arguments are new and serious, then you should publish
them -- as that is what I will be doing. That's the science biz.
I may chime-in on the reflector from time to time, but don't count on it.
******
I'll comment on Tim Ikeda's post. If you like that -- great. If you have
counter-arguments -- publish them. If you have questions -- see my book
first.
Tim quotes a discussion that references my book and theory.
Then he responds:
>Interesting point. I suppose if we postulated that God intended his
>works to be obvious then that might be a sound conclusion. I call
>this the "Louisville Slugger" approach to faith (named after a brand
>of baseball bat that is sometimes favored by the youths of New Jersey
>who want to get a point across with their "uncooperative audiences").
>However, if God did not intend to make faith compulsory or at least
>allows uncertainty, then I think the question is up for grabs.
>Depending on the nature of God, or at least, one's auxillary assumptions
>about God's nature, different patterns or results could be expected.
>I can see that this makes the development of creation theories extremely
>difficult, and I highly respect those who do not attempt shortcuts
>in the process.
In context, Tim appears to be referring to my theory, so I'll make some
clarifications. My theory does not speak of "God", rather it uniformly
speaks of a "designer". The biotic message is *only* a scientific theory,
and it is fully a scientific theory. It does not save souls. It does not
test God. It does not prove God. I understand that many (all?) scientific
theories have theological implications -- Darwin's theory did, and so does
mine. I am unashamed of that.
Why do I insist on the above seemingly minor clarification? Because
evolutionists love to portray the origins debate as "Science versus
Religion". They waste no opportunity on that. They frequently inject
religion into the discussion. Recall last week where Tim introduced himself
as an "agnostic" who "tend[s] not to get into discussions of purely
theological (or Christian) issues." Yet sensing points to be scored, he now
dives right in -- frequently invoking "God"; assailing his opposition with
moral arguments about the "Louisville Slugger" and "shortcuts"; commenting
on the vast unknowable-ness of God and how "this makes the development of
creation theories extremely difficult". Don't kid yourself. Evolutionists
will inject religion into the discussion whenever they think they can score
points.
If evolutionists seek to assail my theory theologically, they will get very
little sympathy from me. They asked us for a scientific debate, and now
they have one.
******
Most of Tim's post is about ... extinction. Extinction? You probably
hadn't heard it as an issue between evolutionists and creationists. That's
due to profound *agreement* -- "They all died!" Is there any mystery there?
Of course, evolutionists confidently give you all manner of storytelling
about it. "The species went extinct because they were slow." "Because they
were small." "Because they were simple." In fact, for all the same reasons
that evolutionists -- in other cases -- say were *beneficial.* Why did the
sloth evolve? "Because it's so slow and energy conserving, and that is a
great benefit to survival." Ask a question, and evolutionists give you story.
Tim Ikeda takes this traditional non-issue -- extinction -- and tries to
fashion it into evidence against my theory. He focuses on the extinction of
whole groups of species, presumably whole "branches" of the evolutionary
tree, and he tries to create the illusion that evolutionary theory predicts
something about it. But evolution doesn't seriously predict *any*
extinctions, much less group extinctions.
To create the illusion Tim writes:
>In evolution -- common descent with modification -- if a species
>dies out without having "spawned" another species, it is gone
>forever. Extinction applies to larger groups as well.
Tim tries to make that sound like a prediction. But it is not. It is
merely playing with circumlocution. If a group of species goes extinct,
then it is gone forever. Otherwise it is not gone forever. So what!
Evolutionary theory can adapt to either situation.
Here is Tim's central argument against my theory:
>[I]t is a question of whether a creator bounded by the axioms
>of the message hypothesis would have permitted group
>extinctions, considering; 1) that such a pattern would
>definitely resemble or "look like" evolution;
Tim says the biotic message is false because life "looks like" evolution.
Yet he has not identified any conceivable situation that would look *unlike*
evolution. That's why his argument fails.
An additional point. As best I can tell, Tim has not read my chapters on
fossil sequence. Therefore he missed the potential role of extinction in
the biotic message. The first appearances (and perhaps extinctions) of
fossil species (and groups) serves a valid purpose in the biotic message by
solving the "Incompleteness" problem. The earth's distinctive fossil
sequence limits the observer's ability to brush aside the fossil record as
"Incomplete". This has been so successful the punctuationists now accept
the fossil record as substantially more complete than previously thought,
and they posed their radical new theory -- punctuated equilibria -- as their
best alternative for explaining away the systematic absences of ancestors,
lineages, and gradual intergradations.
The Biotic Message covers a lot of territory, and makes coherent testable
claims about life's major patterns. An abundance of material is exposed and
vulnerable, and Tim Ikeda, a man of abilities, has looked it over. That he
then assaults a point so flimsy gives us a measure of confidence that the
theory has merit.
-- Walter ReMine
P.O. Box 28006
Saint Paul, MN 55128