On Sat, 22 Feb 1997 22:37:16 -0500, John W. Burgeson wrote:
JB>Day 2 of the NTSE conference was better than the first! >Heard
Michael Ruse this afternoon. Great speaker.
[...]
JB>While Ruse does not agree with Phil Johnson (surprise!), he
>agrees less with Richard Dawkins.
This is highly significant. Ruse is probably the world's leading
Darwinist philosopher whose evidence was crucial in the 1981 McLean
v. Arkansas court case in which Federal Judge William Overton ruled
the Arkansas "Balanced Treatment Act" unconstitutional.
What is significant about it is that "Richard Dawkins" `blind
watchmaker' evolution is the classical Neo-Darwinist paradigm of
evolution by tiny gradual cumulative changes. Dawkins points out
that this view of evolution is the only one which can, even in
principle, explain how complex designs can arise naturalistically:
"I want to persuade the reader, not just that the Darwinian
world-view happens to be true, but that it is the only known
theory that could, in principle, solve the mystery of our
existence. This makes it a doubly satisfying theory. A good
case can be made that Darwinism is true, not just on this planet
but all over the universe wherever life may be found." (Dawkins
R., "The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, ppxiv)
"The Darwinian theory is in principle capable of explaining
life. No other theory that has ever been suggested is in
principle capable of explaining life." (Dawkins, 1991, p288)
"The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the
only theory we know of that is in principle capable of
explaining the existence of organized complexity. Even if the
evidence did not favour it, it would still be the best theory
available! (Dawkins, 1991, p317)
Indeed, as Johnson points out:
"If rival models of evolution cannot even in principle explain
complexity, Dawkins's blind watchmaker model deserves to be
called the theory of evolution. (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the
Balance", 1995, p84)
But the problem is, Dawkins' `blind watchmaker' model does not fit
the fossil evidence:
"If the fossil record is a reliable guide, "evolution" seems to
be a process in which new forms of life appeared abruptly,
remained fundamentally unchanged throughout their tenure on the
earth and then often became extinct-not because they were
gradually supplanted by improved descendants, but because they
were in the wrong ecological niche at the time of a mass
extinction. That is evolution Gould-style. Because it is
derived primarily from observation, rather than the more
abstract theoretical need to account for complex adaptations, I
call it "empirical evolution" to distinguish it from "blind
watchmaker evolution." The advantage of empirical evolution is
that it squares pretty well with observations. The disadvantage
is that it does not explain the main point that a theory of
evolution needs to explain which is the origin of adaptive
complexity. Living organisms are packed with complex parts that
have to work together, and the genetic information required to
keep those parts working properly to serve the needs of the
organism must be enormous. Where did it come from? To stick
with Dawkins's chosen example, how did the bat get its wings, or
its echolocation (bat sonar) system, or its breathing apparatus,
or any of the myriad other complex things that bats need to
have?" (Johnson, 1995, pp86-87)
So if Dawkins `blind watchmaker' model is the only explanation, even
in principle, of how life's complex designs arose without recourse
to an Intelligent Designer, but Dawkins model does not fit the
evidence, then the only explanation left, even in principle, is that
of creation by an Intelligent Designer.
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------