On Wed, 30 Apr 1997 20:16:26 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>SJ>"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor
less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century..."
(Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", 1985, pp358-359)
>
>"Darwinist evolution is an imaginative story about who we are
>and where we came from, which is to say it is a creation myth.
>(Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, p133-134).
PM>Nice redefinition of myth versus science.
In the case of origins, the line between "myth" and
"science" becomes blurred. Sagan, after recounting
These are some of the last "fifteen billion years of cosmic
evolution", admits:
"It has the sound of epic myth, and rightly. But it is simply a
description of cosmic evolution as revealed by the science of our
time." (Sagan C., "Cosmos", Macdonald: London, 1981, pp337-338)
Harvard Professor of Biology E.O. Wilson concludes his chapter on
Origins with an admission that is is a "creation myth":
"How much of this can be believed? Every generation needs its own
creation myths, and these are ours. They are probably more accurate
than any that have come before, but they are undoubtedly subject to
revision as we find out more about the nature and the history of
life. The best that can be said for any scientific theory is that
it explains all the data at hand and has no obvious internal
contradictions." (Wilson E.O., et al., "Life on Earth", 1973, p624)
PM>Why the need to redefine words to suggest that there is no
>difference between a creation myth based on unprovable assumptions
>of a super natural being and a story of evolution (which is btw not
>creation, a common confusion)?
Where have I "redefined words"? I am merely point out that "the
Darwinian theory of [macro] evolution" functions as a creation-myth.
That's why you are here debating it! If it was just another
scientific theory, you wouldn't bother.
BTW I have no problem with Genesis 1 being called a "creation myth",
since the Bible makes clear that God used "various ways" (Heb 1:1)
to convey His message to mankind.
PM>The creationists already have confused matters by discussing
>evolution in a wider sense and conclude that since this violates
>the SLOT that therefor evolution in the narrower sense also
>violates the SLOT.
Go back and read what I said.
PM>Such confusion and incorrect logic only serve to complicate
>discussion on a scientific level of the issues.
In your case I must agree! Go back and read *carefully* what I
have said on this topic, and then come back and debate it. A good
idea to avoid "confusion" is to actually quote my words within
quotation marks as far as possible. This would help ensure you
debate what your opponent actually said, as opposed to what you
*think* (or would like) him to have said.
>SJ>"The concept of organic evolution is very highly prized by
>biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious
>devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative
principle. This is probably the reason why severe methodological
criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been
brought to bear on evolutionary speculation." (Conklin E., "Man
Real and Ideal", 1943, p147, in Bird W.R., "The Origin of Species
Revisited", 1991, Vol. II, p75)
PM>A bit dated isn't it? However such quotes, however interesting,
>do not further a scientific discussion either.
Berlinski notes this "dated" defence is a favorite tactice of
Darwinists:
"Evolutionary biologists have a habit of ignoring the most pertinent
criticisms of their theory until they can decently call them
out-of-date." (Berlinski D., "Denying Darwin: David Berlinski and
Critics", Commentary, September 1996, p26)
Unfortunately for your argument, truth doesn't get "dated" with the
mere passage of time. You need to show that since "1943" "severe
methodological criticism..." *has* "been brought to bear on
evolutionary speculation."
Regards.
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------