On Tue, 04 Feb 1997 22:34:57 -0500, Brian D. Harper wrote:
>DN>Sure, have to make sure what our definition of evolution is. But
>I don't agree that the only facts about evolution are from
>microevolution. What I'm talking about is the fossil record. We
>see that life started with microorganisms, and then more complex sea
>animals, then fish, then land organisms, and on and on. We see a
>lot of change in life over time. We see that new organisms appear.
>This isn't saying anything about how any of it got there. These are
>just the facts about the history of life, and they show definite
>change over time. This is what I call the facts of evolution.
>SJ>They are indeed "the facts about the history of life" but they
>are not necessarily "the facts of *evolution*", unless you know
>somehow that a fully naturalistic mechanism called "evolution"
>caused them. If you assert that, I will then ask you what *exactly*
>that mechanism was:
BH>David went to a lot of trouble to define exactly what he meant by
>"the facts of evolution". Why are you playing these word games?
I am not "playing...word games". David has defined "the facts of
evolution" twice as "change over time". This is vacuous because it
does not specify what the "mechanism" was that produced that "change
over time". If a supernatural Creator intervened at strategic points
in the origin of life and lifes major groups, then that would be
*Mediate Creation*, not "evolution".
BH>As per your request to know *exactly* what the mechanism was,
>please see below:
[...]
>DN>These can't be disputed and that's why I'm saying ICR is wrong.
>They don't account for the facts of evolution in the fossil record.
>SJ>That the "ICR is wrong" does not necessarily mean that
>"evolution" is right. If the God of the Bible exists, and He has
>created progressively over time, the the "ICR", although "wrong"
>about the details would be right in the big picture.
BH>Very good, Steve. Likewise if Blind Watchmaker evolution is wrong
>it does not necessarlily mean that Intelligent Design is right.
>
>Right?
No one is claiming that "Intelligent Design is" *necessarily* right".
Even if all known naturalistic theories of evolution are eventually
shown to be unable to explain life's design, it is always possible
that some unknown naturalistic theory yet to be discovered, could
explain it.
However, it is a historical fact that before Darwin just about
everyone took it for granted that the evident design in nature
required an Intelligent Designer. This reached classic expression in
Paley's watchmaker argument:
"In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were
asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for
anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever: nor would it
perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I
had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the
watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer
which I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have
always been there.' (Paley W., "Natural Theology", American Tract
Society, New York, p9, in Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box", 1996, p211)
Then Darwin claimed that his purely naturalistic theory of tiny
incremental changes accumulating over time could mimic the work of an
Intelligent Designer. Instead of Paley's divine Watchmaker, Darwin
proposed what Dawkins called "the Blind Watchmaker":
"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)
However it now appears that Darwin's "Blind Watchmaker" theory does
not fit the evidence and, though it still may be "textbook
orthodoxy", it is "effectively dead":
"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)
There is however, no other known biological theory that can, even in
principle, explain biological design:
"There are a few other theories that have been, and even occasionally
still are, advanced as alternatives to Darwinian selection. Once
again, I shall show that they are not really serious alternatives at
all. I shall show (it is really obvious) that these 'alternatives'-
'neutralism', `mutationism', and so on - may or may not be
responsible for some proportion of observed evolutionary change, but
they cannot be responsible for adaptive evolutionary change, that is
for change in the direction of building up improved devices for
survival like eyes, ears elbow joints, and echo-ranging devices. Of
course, large quantities of evolutionary change may be non-adaptive,
in which case these alternative theories may well be important in
parts of evolution, but only in the boring parts of evolution, not
the parts concerned with what is special about life as opposed to
non-life." (Dawkins, 1991, p303)
Therefore, in respect of the explanation of life's designs, we are
back to the pre-Darwinian days of Paley, as even the non-theists
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe admit:
"The speculations of the Origin of Species turned out to be wrong, as
we have seen in this chapter. It is ironic that the scientific facts
throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the
scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament
with a chance of being the ultimate winner." (Hoyle F. &
Wickramasinghe C., "Evolution from Space", 1981, pp96-97)
[...]
>SJThis is easy to explain by an Intelligent Design model, but
>difficult to explain by a `blind watchmaker' model.
[...]
>SC>Note, I do not say that this is known fact. Rather, I simply
>wish to point out that the theory of evolution can, in fact,
>include a model for prebiotic evolution.
SJ>Unless some sort of detailed mechanism is specified, it is
>vacuous. For example, if "evolution" means simply "change through
>time", as the California Science Framework defines it (Johnson P.E.,
>"Darwin on Trial", 1993, p145), then by definition it is true, even
>tautologous.
SJ>And now I will hold you to your own criteria. Please specify for
>me the detailed mechanisms used by the Intelligent Designer. If you
>cannot do this then I will have to conclude that your so-called
>Intelligent Design model is vacuous.
No. The "Intelligent Design model" does specifiy a "mechanism", the
word of command of the "Intelligent Designer':
"And God said, `Let there be...,' and there was..." (Gn 1:3,6,9,
11,14,20,24,26); "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made,
their starry host by the breath of his mouth" (Ps 33:6); In the
beginning was the Word...Through him all things were made; without
him nothing was made that has been made." (Jn 1:1-3).
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------