On Tue, 4 Jun 1996 05:37:02 -0400, Bill Hamilton wrote:
>SJ>So macro-evolution cannot be defined as "the origin of novelty"
>unless creation [which Steve also defined as "the origin of novelty"]
is ruled out of court, as not scientific.
>Bill>I think loose definitions are frequently part of the problem in
>origins discussions. But Steve's line of reasoning is incorrect.
>The fact that creation and macro-evolution could both be considered
>the origin of novelty does not mean that they conflict, or that one
>of them must be "ruled out of court as nonscientific".
>SJ>I could only agree if if "creation" and "macro-evolution" are
>redefined in such a way that either means something other than what
>it normally means. But this is just a verbal shell game. Upturn
>the shells by defining your terms, and we will see where the pea is!
>:-)
BH>Steve, the mere fact that two terms can have the same or similar
>definitions does not mean that one of them is wrong. Polish up your logic,
>my friend. If I say that iron and brass are both metals, both statements
>are true.
There's nothing wrong with my "logic" Bill. That's *exactly* what I
said: "creation" and "macro-evolution" can only have the same
definition if both are "redefined in such a way that either means
something other than what it normally means."
Using your example, although "iron and brass are both metals", in
that they are members of a class "metals", you would have some slight
scientific problems in claiming they are both the *same* "metal"!
:-) Similarly, while both "creation" and "macro-evolution" are
possible alternatives in the class, "origins of novelty", you will
have scientific problems if you try to claim they are both the same
thing.
And the point about "origins" is that by definition they are *unique*
events. There can only be *one* explanation that is true for "the
origin of novelty". In the case of the origin of the cosmos, it is
the Big Bang. The the case of the origin of *large-scale* changes in
the design of living things, it is either naturalistic macroevolution
or supernaturalistic creation.
No doubt a theist can define "macroevolution" as God's process of
bringing all living things to its present state by the use of natural
processes, but this is not what the scientific community mean by
"macroevolution".
BH>By creation I mean acts of God that bring about something new. I
>don't care whether God acts directly or through an intermediary. If
>the result is something genuinely new, that the intermediary could
>not have accomplished on its own, then it's creation. (Of course as
>a Calvinist I don't believe an intermediary could accomplish
>anything -- or even exist -- on its own.)
Agree totally. I believe that where there is "something genuinely
new" (eg. 1, the origin of the cosmos, 2. the origin of life, and 2.
the origin of new designs) then "God" has acted "directly or through
an intermediary".
BH>By evolution I mean variations in the distribution of alleles in a
>population from generation to generation.
This is just a population genetics definition:
"It is now possible, however, to redescribe the evolutionary process
in the language of modern genetics. Evolution can be broadly defined
as a change in the heredity of a population. Population genetics
permits an even more precise definition: evolution is any change in
gene frequency in a population." (Wilson E.O., et al., "Life on
Earth", Sinauer Associates: Sunderland Mass., 1973, p772)
But this is just another variant of the "evolution" = "change over
time" definition. It is too vague to be of any use and says nothing
about: 1. the *type* of changes (eg. vertical or horizontal); and
2. *the mechanism* by which such changes occurred.
BH>By macroevolution I mean changes in taxa above the species level
(yes, I stand corrected. My biology major son looked it up for me
today.).
This is not a bad definition but as David Tyler has pointed out,
science has dificulty defining exactly what is a "species". For
example, a wolf and a dog are regarded as separate species, but they
can both interbreed, as Gish points out:
"...empirical evidence has accumulated to demonstrate not only that
the science of taxonomy-that is, our attempts to classify organisms
into categories such as species, genera, families, orders, classes,
and phyla-is arbitrary and fallible, but even attempts to define a
species are arbitrary and disputable. Thus, a species is often
defined as a population of individuals that interbreed, producing
fertile offspring, and thus experiencing a flow of genetic material
between individuals of the species, and which are non-fertile with
respect to other species. This is not really true at all, however.
Our common household pet, the dog (Canis familiaris), interbreeds
with wolves (Canis lupus), coyotes (genus Canis), and jackals (genus
Canis), producing fertile offspring." (Gish D.T., "Creation
Scientists Answer Their Critics", Institute for Creation Research:
El Cajon CA, 1993, p34).
Thus on that defintion, one could argue that change from a wolf to a
dog is "macroevolution", but few if any creationists would have a
problem with it. I am certainly not interested in defending a
creationist view that God supernaturally intervened to create a dog
from a wolf, althoiugh neither would I rule it out altogether.
I think Gould is on the right track when he defines macro-evolution
as:
1. "large-scale evolution", eg. "origin of basic designs, long-term
trends, patterns of extinction and faunal turnover:
"The strict version, with its emphasis on copious, minute, random
variation molded with excruciating but persistent slowness by natural
selection, also implied that all events of large-scale evolution
(macroevolution) were the gradual, accumulated product of innumerable
steps, each a minute adaptation to changing conditions within a local
population. This "extrapolationist" theory denied any independence
to macroevolution and interpreted all large-scale evolutionary events
(origin of basic designs, long-term trends, patterns of extinction
and faunal turnover) as slowly accumulated microevolution (the study
of small-scale changes within species)" (Gould S.J., "Hen's Teeth and
Horse's Toes", Penguin: London, 1984, p13); and
2. "major structural transitions":
"As a Darwinian, I wish to defend Goldschmidt's postulate that
macroevolution is not simply microevolution extrapolated, and that
major structural transitions can occur rapidly without a smooth
series of intermediate stages." (Gould S.J., "The Return of the
Hopeful Monster", "The Panda's Thumb", Penguin: London, 1980, p157).
"Orthodox neo-Darwinians extrapolate these even and continuous
changes to the most profound structural transitions in the history of
life: by a long series of insensibly graded intermediate steps,
birds are linked to reptiles, fish with jaws to their jawless
ancestors. Macroevolution (major structural transition) is nothing
more than microevolution (flies in bottles) extended. If black moths
can displace white moths in a century, then reptiles can become birds
in a few million years by the smooth and sequential summation of
countless changes. The shift of gene frequencies in local
populations is an adequate model for all evolutionary processes - or
so the current orthodoxy states." (Gould S.J., "The Return of the
Hopeful Monster", "The Panda's Thumb", Penguin: London, 1980,
p155-156).
I don't even want to argue against some things that Gould calls
"macroevolution", such as "long-term trends, patterns of extinction
and faunal turnover". I could hapily concede that these could all be
solely the result of natural causes. I don't even want to argue
about "kinds" or "basic types", as I believe these exist in the mind
of the Creator and only have their imperfect "shadows" here on Earth
(eg. Col 2:17; Heb 8:5; 10:1).
What I want to argue against is what I consider the most fundamental
idea in "macroevolution", ie. that part of it that Gould calls the
"origin of basic designs". Interestingly, this is what Dawkins also
means in "The Blind Watchmaker" (athough significantly he does not
even use the word "macroevolution"):
"The problem is that of complex design....The complexity of living
organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent
design. If anyone doesn't agree that this amount of complex design
cries out for an explanation, I give up." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, pp.xiii)
and
"This book is mainly about evolution as the solution of the complex
'design' problem; evolution as the true explanation for the phenomena
that Paley thought proved the existence of a divine watchmaker. This
is why I keep going on about eyes and echolocation...As I said at the
beginning of this chapter, what I mainly want a theory of evolution
to do is explain complex, well-designed mechanisms like hearts,
hands, eyes and echolocation. Nobody, not even the most ardent
species selectionist, thinks that species selection can do this."
(Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991,
pp255,265).
My claim is that *the origin of complex design*, is *at its most
fundamental level*, supernaturalistic, not naturalistic. It is
*design* which determines taxonomic classifications, so the origin of
higher taxa resolves into the origin of design. And "the origin of
novelty" resolves into the origin of new designs. It is this, and
only this, that I argue must be supernaturalistic (ie. creation), and
not naturalistic (ie. macroevolution), and by which my conception of
progressive creation stands or falls.
Indeed, though metaphysical naturalists use the term "design", it is
just a verbal shell game, because they do not believe there is a
Designer:
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance
of having been designed for a purpose." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, p1)
and
"All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is
the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way.
A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs,
and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's
eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process
which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for
the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no
purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan
for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If
it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the
blind watchmaker." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin:
London, 1991, p5)
*Only* the theist can admit there is real, as opposed to apparent'
design in nature.
SJ>How about it Bill?. Please define exactly what you mean by
>"creation" and "macro-evolution" in the sentence:
>
>"The fact that creation and macro-evolution could both be considered
>the origin of novelty does not mean that they conflict, or that one
>of them must be `ruled out of court as nonscientific' " (Bill
>Hamilton)
BH>As I said before, just because a single definition can be applied
>to two different terms does not mean one of them is wrong, false or
>nonexistent.
See above. It does if the words are given their normal meaning.
Only if a shell game is played with their normal definitions can
"creation and macro-evolution....both be considered the origin of
novelty" in a way that "does not mean that they conflict, or that one
of them must be `ruled out of court as nonscientific' ".
God bless.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------