Pim van Meurs
04-28-97 05:02 PM
To: sejones @ ibm.net
cc:
Subject: Re: Lawyers and theologians 1/3
On Mon, 14 Apr 1997 11:12:18 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
[...]
PM>That depends on the person's ability to understand the assumptions
>behind the arguments.
SJ: That indeed is Johnson's specialty!
Is it ? How well does Johnson understand evolution ?
PM>Darwin did not apply theology to explain the vaste evidence of
>evolution but used a scientific approach.
SJ: Have you ever read The Origin of Species, Pim? It drips with
"theology" - there are literally *dozens* (if not hundreds) of
references to either "God", "the Creator", and "creation". In fact,
Darwin actually gave his number one reason for writing it, as
theological, namely to overthrow the current Christian doctrine of
separate creations:
Irrelevant. Darwin did not require the existance of a creator for his
explanation of evolution. You appear to be confusing Darwin's motivation
versus his actual proof .
PM>You wrote:
SJ>Practicing scientists are of necessity highly specialized, and a
>scientist outside his field of expertise is just another layman"
>(Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, pp13-14)
PM>Does this not mean that Johnson in his own logic is just another
>layman?
SJ: He cheerfully admits he is. But he points out that so is almost
everyone else in the subject of Creation v Evolution.
Perhaps on the creation side this is true but on the science side this is
far from true.
PM>That is, what if it turned out that the evidence for Darwin's
>theory is in tatters and science is hanging on to it only because no
>other theory is in prospect?
>
>[While this might be the premise for an SF novel, Johnson does nothing
>to demonstrate that this actually holds. -- WRE]
SF: On the contrary Johnson does just that!
I guess we have a diasgreement.
PM>What if "evolution" is just a word that covers up scientific
>ignorance of how the wonders of the living world could have been
>created?
>[Then I guess that it holds an analogous position to the word
>"gravity" covering up the scientific ignorance of how clumps of matter
>attract one another. -- WRE]
SF: If Elseberry wants to claim that "evolution" is a "word" that is
"covering up...scientific ignorance", "analogous...to the word
`gravity'" that's fine by me!
Care to read again ?
PM>Berkely law professor Phillip Johnson looks at the evidence for
>Darwinistic evolution the way a lawyer would -- with a cold
>dispassionate eye for logic and proof.
>
>[ROFL -- lawyers take an adversarial position and run with it.
SF: So, even if that generalisation was true, what's wrong with that? Is
"evolution" some sort of sacred cow that cannot be attacked?
Of course not but the attack should be scientific not based on lawyer
arguments.
SJ: In fact, the sudden appearance and stasis, which Gould confirms is
the overwhelmingly pervasive feature of the fossil record:
"The history of most fossil species includes two features
particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most
species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on
earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as
when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and
directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a
species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of
its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed." (Gould
S.J, "The Panda's Thumb", 1980, pp150-151).
SJ: is *more* consistent with creation than `blind watchmaker' evolution.
Both stasis as well as sudden appearance are very compatible with
neo-darwinism.
To require a 'creator' only complicates matters.
Regards
Pim