On Wed, 31 Jul 1996 14:46:11 -0700, Neal K. Roys wrote:
[...]
NR>National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT)
>
>STATEMENT ON TEACHING EVOLUTION
>
>[Adopted by the Board of Directors, March 15, 1995.]
>
>[...]
NR>This same examination, pondering and possible revision have
>firmly established evolution as an important natural process
>explained by valid scientific principles, and clearly
>differentiate and separate science from various kinds of
>nonscientific ways of knowing, including those with a
>supernatural basis such as creationism. Whether called "creation
>science," "scientific creationism," "intelligent-design theory,"
>"young-earth theory" or some other synonym, creation beliefs have
>no place in the science classroom.
It might in accordance with methodological naturalism (see below) to
limit a field of study to natural causes, and therefore not consider
"creationism", "creation science", "scientific creationism," and
"young-earth theory", but why is "intelligent-design theory" outside
of science? If science can consider intelligent design in the case
of humans (eg. archaeology) and even extra-terrestrial aliens
(SETI), why is intelligent design automatically excluded? If the
answer is that intelligent design involves the "supernatural", then
that does not necessarily follow. Hoyle, for example postulates a
non-supernatural intelligent designer:
"By this time surely every schoolboy has figured out that Hoyle and
Wickramasinghe are offering to the world the traditional view of
Special Creation. But every schoolboy would be wrong! Hoyle and
Wickramasinghe deny the creator is the traditional supernatural God.
They envision a creator within the total cosmos." (Thaxton C.B.,
Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of Life's Origin:
Reassessing Current Theories, Lewis & Stanley: Dallas TX, 1992,
p197).
NR>Explanations employing nonnaturalistic or supernatural events,
>whether or not explicit reference is made to a supernatural being,
>are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science
>curriculum.
If this was merely a self-imposed limitation of science to study only
the natural world then it would perhaps be acceptable. But if it
turns a limitation on *science* (ie. methodological naturalism) into
a limitation on *reality*, then it is methaphysical naturalism:
"Methodological naturalism-the principle that science can study only
the things that are accessible to its instruments and techniques-is not
in question. Of course science can study only what science can study.
Methodological naturalism becomes metaphysical naturalism only
when the limitations of science are taken to be limitations upon
reality." (Johnson P.E., "Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning", in Buell J.
& Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?", Foundation
for Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX, 1994, p15)
While it might be defensible to exclude the supernatural from
science in the ongoing *operation* of the cosmos and life, it is
not defensible to do so in the special case of *origins*:
"First, with respect to origins, defining science as a strictly
naturalistic enterprise is metaphysically gratuitous. Consider: It
is at least logically possible that a personal agent existed before
the appearance of the first life on earth. Further...we do live in
the sort of world where knowledge of such an agent could possibly be
known or inferred from empirical data. This suggests that it is
logically and empirically possible that such an agent (whether divine
or otherwise) designed or influenced the origin of life on earth. To
insist that postulations of past agency are inherently unscientific
in the historical sciences (where the express purpose of such inquiry
is to determine what happened in the past) suggests we know that no
personal agent could have existed prior to humans. Not only is such
an assumption intrinsically unverifiable, it seems entirely
gratuitous in the absence of some noncircular account of why science
should presuppose metaphysical naturalism.
Second, to exclude by assumption a logically and empirically possible
to the question motivating historical science seems intellectually
and theoretically limiting, especially since no equivalent
prohibition exists on the possible nomological relationships that
scientists may postulate in nonhistorical sciences. The (historical)
question that must be asked about biological origins is not "Which
materialistic scenario will prove most adequate?" but "How did life
as we know it actually arise on earth?" Since one of the logically
and syntactically appropriate answers to this later question is "Life
was designed by an intelligent agent that existed before the advent
of humans," it seems rationally stultifying to exclude the design
hypothesis without a consideration of all the evidence, including the
most current evidence, that might support it." (Meyer S.C., "The
Methodological Equivalence of Design & Descent: Can There be a
Scientific `Theory of Creation'?" in Moreland J.P. ed., "The
Creation Hypothesis", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., 1994,
p101)
NR>Evolutionary theory, indeed all of science, is necessarily silent
>on religion and neither refutes nor supports the existence of a
>deity or deities.
It might be OK if Darwinists practiced what they preached and
remained "silent on religion" and neither refuted nor supported "the
existence of a deity or deities". However, as we all know, their
writings are full of references to "religion" and "the existence of a
deity". What they really want is the freedom to attack "religion"
and "the existence of a deity" while at the same time deny those who
believe in same from defending their position:
"The Academy thus defined science" in such a way that advocates of
supernatural creation may neither argue for their own position nor
dispute the claims of the scientific establishment....the rules of
argument seemed to be structured to make it impossible to question
whether what we are being told about evolution is really true....It
is as if a criminal defendant were not allowed to present an alibi
unless he could also show who did commit the crime." (Johnson P.E.,
"Darwin on Trial", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second
Edition, 1993, p8)
NR>Accordingly, the National Association of Biology Teachers, an
>organization of science teachers, endorses the following tenets
>of science, evolution and biology education:
>
>*The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an
>unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of
>temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by
>natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing
>environments.
I have already commented on this in a previousl post. But in the
light of the NABT's claim that "...science, is necessarily silent on
religion and neither refutes nor supports the existence of a deity or
deities" it sounds a bit hollow. Clearly claiming that "The
diversity of life on earth is the outcome of...an unsupervised...
natural process" is not being "silent on religion" and if true it
would "refute" or undermine "support" for "the existence of a
deity" such as Chistianity believes in.
NR>*Evolutionary theory is significant in biology, among other
>reasons, for its unifying properties and predictive features, the
>clear empirical testability of its integral models and the
>richness of new scientific research it fosters.
None of this would be lost if an Intelligent Designer was
behind the origin of the cosmos, life, and life's major groups.
NR>*The fossil record, which includes abundant transitional forms in
>diverse taxonomic groups, establishes extensive and comprehensive
>evidence for organic evolution.
Some one should tell Stephen Jay Gould:
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record
persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees
that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of
their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the
evidence of fossils." (Gould S.J., "The Episodic Nature of
Evolutionary Change", "The Panda's Thumb", Penguin: London, 1980,
pp150-151)
NR>*Natural selection, the primary mechanism for evolutionary
>changes, can be demonstrated with numerous, convincing examples,
>both extant and extinct.
Most (if not all) these "numerous, convincing examples, both extant
and extinct" are evidence for *microevolution* which even
Creation-Scientists accept:
"Well, the peppered moths do seem to provide strong evidence of
natural selection. But is that evidence of evolution? Notice I've
changed the question. That's a key point. First I asked if there
was any evidence that Darwin was correct about natural selection.
The answer quite simply, is, "Yes, there is." But now I'm asking a
radically different question, "Is there any evidence for evolution?"
Many people say, "Isn't that the same question? Aren't natural
selection and evolution the same thing?" Answer: NO, absolutely
not." (Morris H.M. & Parker G.E., "What is Creation Science?",
Master Books: El Cajon CA, 1987, p81)
NR>*Natural selection--a differential, greater survival and
>reproduction of some genetic variants within a population under
>an existing environmental state--has no specific direction or
>goal, including survival of a species.
Of course "Natural selection...has no specific direction or goal".
How can a *process* have a "goal"? Only an Intelligent Designer
could have a "goal" and the NABT has already said that
"intelligent-design theory" is a "nonscientific way of knowing". The
NABT wants to have it both ways - to exclude "intelligent-design
theory" from consideration "in the science classroom", while at the
same time pontificating against teleology which is a central tenet
of"intelligent-design theory"!
Besides, it is a fallacy of composition to claim that because there
does not appear to be a "goal" in the individual details, that there
is no overall goal in the whole:
"All that is made seems planless to the darkened mind, because there
are more plans than it looked for...There seems no plan because it is
all plan..." (Lewis C.S., "Perelandra", The Bodley Head: London,
1977, p251)
NR>*Adaptations do not always provide an obvious selective
>advantage. Furthermore, there is no indication that
>adaptations--molecular to organismal--must be perfect:
>adaptations providing a selective advantage must
>simply be good enough for survival and increased reproductive
>fitness.
Uncontroversial.
NR>*The model of punctuated equilibrium provides another account of
>the tempo of speciation in the fossil record of many lineages: it
>does not refute or overturn evolutionary theory, but instead adds
>to its scientific richness.
Despite the fact that Gould claimed that in 1980 that Neo-Darwinism
was "effectively dead" and has never retracted it:
"I well remember how the synthetic theory beguiled me with its
unifying power when I was a graduate student in the mid-1960's.
Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel as a universal
description of evolution. The molecular assault came first, followed
quickly by renewed attention to unorthodox theories of speciation and
by challenges at the level of macroevolution itself. I have been
reluctant to admit it-since beguiling is often forever-but if Mayr's
characterization of the synthetic theory is accurate, then that
theory, as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its
persistence as textbook orthodoxy." (Gould S.J., "Is a new and
general theory of evolution emerging?", Paleobiology, vol. 6(1),
January 1980, p120)
and more recently has affirmed of Dawkins' orthodox Neo-Darwinism
that it has failed:
"If this uniformitarian vision of extrapolation fails, then we must
conclude that while adaptationism may control immediate changes in
the overt forms of organisms, it cannot render evolution at other
scales. The main excitement in evolutionary theory during the past
twenty years has not been - as Cronin [ie. Dawkins protege] would
have us believe - the shoring up of Darwinism in its limited realm
(by gene selectionism or any other patching device), but rather the
documentation of the reasons why Darwin's crucial requirement for
extrapolation has failed. Selectionism is not a general model for
evolutionary change at most scales....the ultimate failure of
Cronin's [ie. Dawkins] adaptionism, as a general evolutionary model,
appears most clearly when we consider the paleontological record.
Darwin's vision may prevail in the here and now of immediate adaptive
struggles. But if we cannot extend the small changes thereby
produced into the grandeur of geological time to yield the full tree
of life, then Darwin's domain is a limited corner of evolutionary
explanation....if mass exctinctions are true breaks in continuity, if
the slow building of adaptation in normal times does not extend into
predicted success across mass exctinction boundaries, then
extrapolationism fails and adaptationism succumbs." (Gould S.J.,
"The Confusion About Evolution" in "The New York Review of Books",
November 19, 1992, a review of "The Ant and the Peacock: Altruism
and Sexual Selection from Darwin to Today", Cambridge U. Press, 1991,
by Helena Cronin. Parentheses mine)
NRp>*Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics:
>producing order from disorder is possible with the addition of
>energy, such as from the sun.
Too simplistic. Energy alone is insufficient. There must also be an
energy conversion mechanism:
"Maintenance of the complex, high- energy condition associated with
life is not possible apart from a continuous source of energy. A
source of energy alone is not sufficient, however, to explain the
origin or maintenance of living systems. The additional crucial
factor is a means of converting this energy into the necessary useful
work to build and maintain complex living systems from the simple
biomonomers that constitute their molecular building blocks. An
automobile with an internal combustion engine, transmission, and
drive chain provides the necessary mechanism for converting the
energy in gasoline into comfortable transportation. Without such an
however, obtaining transportation from gasoline would be impossible.
In a similar way, food would do little for a man whose stomach,
intestines, liver, or pancreas were removed. Without these, he would
surely die even though he continued to eat. Apart from a mechanism
to couple the available energy to the necessary work, high-energy
biomass is insufficient to sustain a living system far from
equilibrium. In the case of living systems such a coupling mechanism
channels the energy along specific chemical pathways to accomplish a
very specific type of work. We therefore conclude that, given the
availability of energy and an appropriate coupling mechanism, the
maintenance of a living system far from equilibrium presents no
thermodynamic problems." (Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L.,
"The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Lewis &
Stanley: Dallas TX, 1992, p124)
[continued]
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------