No, I haven't read it. Thanks for the recommendation, and I'll do my best
to get to it soon.
(snip)
> Third, there is the theory of common descent, which is a part
> of the body of evolutionary theory, but is often what anti-
> evolutionists object to..."I don't believe people came from
> monkeys!" This is an assumption for most modern work on the
> subject.
I was aware that this is so, but I couldn't figure out how to put it into
my discussion of the 8 points. Notice that I said "At least 8 ..." I agree
with you that it's quite important, but it didn't seem necessary to the
point(s) I was trying to make.
> Fourth, there is the group of theories about how common descent
> (and current evolution) took place--which forces drove it, what
> their relative importance is, what limiting factors are there,
>
>
> > 5. 3 + 4 together (i.e., mutation + natural selection, in
> > whatever way these may be understood) are the cause of *some*
> > (but not all) changes in biological organisms.
>
> This is the neo-Darwinist position.
I don't think so. Anyway, it seems to me that the neo-Darwinist position
is my #6 below. Or, at least Dawkins seems to conclude that both my #6 and
#7 are true.
> > Group-B:
> > 6. 3 + 4 together (i.e., mutation + natural selection) can
> > account for *all* changes in biological organisms (i.e., can
> > account for all speciation and the coming into being of all
> > biological differences and biological structures, after the
> > first living cell appears).
>
> No evolutionists believe this.
As I read Dawkins, he seems to hold this view. At least he seems to hold
that these are the central or primary points.
> > 7. 3 + 4 together (i.e., mutation + natural selection) are the
> > only possible (or intellectually credible) account for all
> > changes in biological organisms.
>
> Or this.
Again, Dawkins seems to me to say this. Or, at any rate, he says that the
current understanding of evolution (whatever that mayŠ8)ž7-÷×
> > 8. Metaphysical naturalism must be accepted as the only (possible
> > or intellectually credible) stance. (As opposed to
> > metaphysical supernaturalism or theism.)
>
> Some believe this, however. This is a philosophical argument,
> though, not one particularly identified with biological evolution--
> why evolutionary theory instead of gravitational theory is
> singled out by Johnson and others for objection in this regard
> seems a bit mysterious.
>
> > 5 are true. *If evolution is defined as claiming that any or all
> > of the statements 1 through 5 are true, but only that,* then we
> > can say that evolution is conclusively shown to be true. Thus, if
> > the claim "evolution is true" means *only* that one or more of
> > the statements 1 through 5 is asserted to be true, then that
> > claim "evolution is true" is warranted or true.
>
> > Here, however, is the most important point: The truth of any
> > of the statements 1 through 5 -- or of all the statements 1
> > through 5 taken together -- does *not* yield the truth of *any*
> > of the statements 6 through 8.
>
> However true that may be, it is hard to see how that impacts the
> debate, since no evolutionists maintain either 6 or 7, and 8 is
> a much broader base which everyone doing science, medicine, business,
> interior decorating, plumbing, watch repairing, and political
> campaign junketing takes as a working hypothesis.
>
> > The error in much evolutionist thinking and argumentation comes
> > about, I think, because of this confusion: 1 through 5 are known
> > to be true. Moreover the truth of 1 through 5 offers some
> > evidence toward the truth of one or more of the statements 6
> > through 8. On that basis, many evolutionists go on to assert that
> > one or more of the statements 6 through 8 is true.
>
> I think we'll need more evidence than this that any evolutionists
> believe that 6 or 7 is true. There was a time, BTW, when practically
> no evolutionists believed Darwin's selection theory accounted for
> much of any of biology. The neo-Darwinian group of theories has
> placed selection back in a prominent role, but certainly not as
> the only operator. Neutralist theory, genetic drift, horizontal
> transfer, and (I can hardly believe you're missing this one ;-))
> sex are all key components of the modern synthesis. Current
> arguments rage over their relative importance, and about how best
> to understand the units of selection, and about the details of
> the dynamics of the processes.
>
> > I need to consider for my purposes here.) On the basis of the
> > truth of 1 through 5, Dawkins then goes on to assert the truth of
> > 6 and then 7 *without giving anywhere near sufficient evidence
> > for their truth* -- instead he gives a lot of hand-waving and "it
> > must have been's" and "we can only suppose's" and so on -- what
>
> To the contrary, Dawkins *does* think mechanisms other than selection
> are responsible for evolutionary history, he just doesn't regard them
> as interesting. This is a topic of much heated debate on talk.origins;
> I suggest you take a look there under 'High Table' 'Dawkins' 'selectionism'
> and see what you find.
>
> > scientific investigation. As you can tell from my tone here,
> > Dawkins irritates and offends me immensely; I regard *The Blind
> > Watchmaker* as being not just factually or logically wrong, but
> > evil.
>
> My suggestion is that in combatting evil, you make sure to get
> the facts straight yourself, or you'll give the appearance of
> a rush to judgment.
>
>
> > First, what is usually called modern science -- that is the
> > empirical science of today that goes back at least to Copernicus
> > -- has been successful because it has adopted statement 8 (the
> > stance of metaphysical naturalism) as its methodological stance.
>
> Science isn't the only human pursuit that takes naturalism as
> a methodology. In fact pretty much every human pursuit takes
> naturalism as an assumption. Plumbers assume there is some
> naturalistic reason why the pipes are blocked--they don't consult
> horoscopes and read your palm, they use Roto-Rooter.
>
> > in naturalistic terms -- i.e., it has held that there must be a
> > naturalistic explanation (as opposed to a supernatural one) for
> > everything. We have methods for testing naturalistic hypotheses,
> > but we do not really have methods for testing extra-naturalistic
> > or supernaturalistic ones. Another way of making this point is to
>
> How would you suggest we proceed, then, if we abandon naturalism?
> Many scientific projects (even naturalistic ones) proceed on the
> basis of 'let's see how far we can get with this line of approach.'
> This is usually because it is just too hard to crunch out the
> more complete theory, so an approximation is used to try to make
> progress. The same is true for whole research programs--they try
> to make sense of some mystery given the current theories afloat,
> and see how far they get. Solar neutrino research is a good
> example. If you are suggesting we incorporate supernaturalism
> into our theories, you need to provide at least two methodologies.
> First, we need a method to determine when to pull in the
> supernatural. Is it after the first attempt fails? "Well, epicycles
> just can't explain the bright dots around Jupiter, so the whole
> of astonomy must be supernatural, let's go do something else."
> Is it when the best, most up-to-date attempt fails? Is it after
> 40 years of failure? Second, we need methods to adjudicate between
> competing supernaturalistic explanations. While judging between
> naturalistic theories is seldom as clean as "do the experiment and
> see," I'm not sure there is any acceptable precedent for adjudicating
> supernaturalistic theories.
>
> > not have come about. Moreover, although there may be ways of
> > testing extra-naturalistic hypotheses, we have not, in fact,
> > possessed them in any way that we could really call scientific.
> > The question of whether extra-naturalistic hypotheses and
> > explanations can be tested in any adequate way thus remains open
> > and unanswered, I think. Another way of saying this is that we do
> > not at this time have available any good or adequate model or
> > paradigm for a non-naturalistic science.
>
> That may be, but before castigating people for not using these
> undefined methods, it might be more appropriate to first define
> them, show how beneficial they are, and then offer them for use.
>
> [paradigm shifts]
>
> Paradigm shifts in science have typically come from a new research
> program gaining much more momentum than its competitors, and
> simply sweeping them off the field. One key ingredient in this
> process (what many scientists wish was the only ingredient) is how
> well the research program is doing in solving interesting problems
> in a field. You can't build momentum in science on rhetoric alone--
> you need a replacement method or theory which does better than
> the competitors and, hopefully, explains where and why they were
> wrong. The supernaturalistic research program seems to be stalled
> in the rhetoric stage--it has produced no interesting and useful
> results, no contributions to any area deemed important and interesting
> by other scientific programs. When it progresses beyond the pouting
> and foot-stamping stage, it will, perhaps, be worth listening to.
> (And don't think for a second that naturalistic research programs
> don't go through this stage! :-)) It is the responsibility of
> folks like yourself to push the program forward.
>
> -Greg
>
>