On Fri, 25 Apr 1997 11:40:34 -0700, Arthur V. Chadwick wrote:
AC>Evolution is as much a fact as the earth turning on its axis and
>going around the sun. At one time this was called the Copernican
>theory; but, when evidence for a theory becomes so overwhelming
>that no informed person can doubt it, it is customary for
>scientists to call it a fact. That all present life descended from
>earlier forms, over vast stretches of geologic time,is as firmly
>established as Copernican cosmology. Biologists differ only with
>respect to theories about how the process operates. -- Martin
>Gardner, "Irving Kristol and the Facts of Life"
This is just another example of Darwinist confusion, bordering on
self-delusion, by flexible use of the all-purpose, swiss-army knife
word "Evolution". The main problem with the above is that it is not
necessarily "evolution"! An Old Earth Creationist could believe:
"That all present life descended from earlier forms, over vast
stretches of geologic time", yet without believing in "Evolution":
"Suppose contemporary evolutionary theory had blind chance built
into it so firmly that there was simply no way of reconciling it
with any sort of divine guidance. It would still be perfectly
possible for theists to reject that theory of evolution and accept
instead a theory according to which natural processes and laws drove
most of evolution, but God on occasion abridged those laws and
inserted some crucial mutation into the course of events. Even were
God to intervene directly to suspend natural law and inject
essential new genetic material at various points in order to
facilitate the emergence of new traits and, eventually, new species,
that miraculous and deliberate divine intervention would by itself
leave unchallenged such key theses of evolutionary theory as that
all species derive ultimately from some common ancestor. Descent
with genetic intervention is still descent-it is just descent with
nonnatural elements in the process." (Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of
Beginnings, 1996, pp187-188)
What Gardner proposes above is *common descent*, not
necessarily "Evolution". Common descent is neither a necessary, nor
a sufficient diagnostic for "Evolution". There are
non-evolutionists who believe in common descent (eg. Mike Behe,
David Wilcox) and there are evolutionists who do not believe in
common descent (eg. Kerkut, Schwabe and Warr).
Denton points out that common ancestry is "equally compatible with
almost any philosophy of nature", including "creationist".
"It is true that both genuine homologous resemblance, that is, here
the phenomenon has a clear genetic and embryological basis (which as
we have seen above is far less common than is often presumed), and
the hierarchic patterns of class relationships are suggestive of
some kind of theory of descent. But neither tell us anything about
how the descent or evolution might have occurred, as to whether the
process was gradual or sudden, or as to whether the causal mechanism
was Darwinian, Lamarckian, vitalistic or even creationist. Such a
theory of descent is therefore devoid of any significant meaning and
equally compatible with almost any philosophy of nature."
(Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", 1985, pp154-155)
Wilcox points out that common descent was already widely accepted in
the scientific world *before* Darwin:
"This paper concerns the appearance of biological structure, not the
tie of such appearance to biotic descent. Evidence for structural
difference/descent does not constitute evidence for the mechanism by
which structural transformation took place. Therefore, the sorts of
evidence that simply indicate relationship and/or descent from a
common ancestor (e.g., molecular clock data, fossil sequences,
chromosomal banding, and other measures of similarity) are not
relevant to this question unless they indicate the nature of the
creative mechanism that produced novelty during that descent.
Evidence of ancestry does not imply knowledge of the morphogenetic
mechanisms that are able to produce novelty. This was perhaps
better understood in the nineteenth century than it is today (Muller
and Wagner, 1991). Indeed, by 1850, almost all researchers accepted
common descent (Gillespie, 1979; Desmond, 1989). The unique
implication of Darwin's theory was therefore not descent, but its
suggestion that the source of biotic order was to be found in the
natural (material) order." (Wilcox D.L., in Buell J. & Hearn V.,
eds., "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?", 1994, p195)
What is diagnostic of "evolution" is the thing that Gardner admits
that "Biologists differ only" on, namely "with respect to theories
about how the process operates". Indeed, Darwin himself admitted
that common descent was not enough - it was necessary to show *how*
common descent had occurred:
"In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that
a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings,
on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution,
geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the
conclusion that species had not been independently created, but had
descended, like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such a
conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, UNTIL IT
COULD BE SHOWN HOW the innumerable species inhabiting this world
have been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of structure
and coadaptation which justly excites our admiration." (Darwin C.,
"The Origin of Species", 6th edition, 1872, Everyman's Library,
1967, p18. My emphasis)
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------